The aviation sector is going through repeated turbulence. Recently, on May 2 to be exact, Spirit Airlines, one of the main American low-cost airlines, filed for bankruptcy and stopped all its flights. However, it is not a small operator. It carried up to 44 million passengers in 2024, achieved a turnover of around $5 billion with a fleet of around 200 aircraft. It is difficult to understand why such a company could not resist the rise in oil prices, especially in the United States, which is much less affected than most other countries in the world. It is quite possible that its pricing practices, on the edge of legality, intended to attract a clientele fond of slashed prices, were the main cause of its bankruptcy, especially since repeated complaints had been registered with the American Civil Aviation authorities. I don’t know how many customers, probably several million, bought their tickets in advance. I wish them good luck in recovering their investment. This is another example of the search for visibility at the top of price comparison sites. Sooner or later, pricing practices that do not cover costs will have to end up being sanctioned. It should be remembered that below $40 per flight hour, airlines fall below their break-even point. And let’s keep a thought for the 17,000 employees of the company who will have to find jobs during a difficult period for air transport.

After this example, which we could easily do without, let us return to an aspect that is often ignored and which is nevertheless essential for air transport: the lack of qualified labour.

During the appalling Covid period, which saw air transport reduced to its simplest expression with thousands of aircraft stored on the ground in airports renowned for their desert position, which allowed better preservation of aircraft, manufacturers, engine manufacturers and their countless list of subcontractors massively parted ways with large numbers of employees. We can understand them, they had nothing more to do and, above all, no more prospects because it was impossible to foresee any recovery. So the first to leave were the seniors of these companies who, in many countries and in particular in Western countries, benefited from early retirements paid by governments. This took a great deal of weight off their employers, especially since they were generally the best paid.

But to everyone’s surprise, vaccines were found and put on the market with a speed that no one could have envisaged. So much so that after two years, the lockdowns imposed on the population were lifted and air transport was able to restart with surprising speed. Prices have increased by 30% but customers were so impatient to travel that they easily accepted these prices, which were largely readjusted upwards. And air transport has regained its growth rate, even if the current conflicts are dampening enthusiasm a little. Orders for new aircraft began to pour in, with each carrier wanting to position itself on the manufacturers’ waiting list.

However, the latter are unable to meet the demand. Lead times are getting longer without airlines having a clear view of the delivery rate of their orders. The matter is not so simple. To fly an aircraft, engines are essential and their construction is particularly delicate. The engine manufacturers Safran, but also Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce are unable to manufacture them fast enough for one main reason: there is no longer enough qualified labour. Much of the know-how and experience held by older employees has been lost, and despite tempting offers from manufacturers, new retirees do not seem to be in a hurry to return to work.

The consequences are serious. Currently, around 500 aircraft assembled by manufacturers are grounded because there is simply a lack of engines. This represents a shortfall of around 600,000 seats per day, with an average of 200 seats and 6 daily flights. That’s nearly 200 million seats per year. And this is not going to be solved by a wave of a magic wand. The training of highly qualified and experienced staff first requires time, provided that sufficient new employees can be recruited, trained and supervised. Meanwhile, orders continue to pour in.

In addition, air transport needs rare metals and, as their name suggests, they are difficult to obtain. The sector of activity is a victim of its own success, a bit like overtourism, and it is very difficult to curb such activity, to the great displeasure of environmentalists.

Movement is one of the defining characteristics of air transport, and that is quite normal. But since the beginning of 2026, we have been witnessing changes that are likely to have a lasting impact on this sector. Despite the current difficulties, which we hope will soon be behind us, the trend appears to be moving towards improved service quality combined with a general increase in fares.

The best example is still provided by Emirates. It has just published its results for the 2025/2026 financial year, which ended on March 31 this year. The results are impressive. Although the number of passengers declined by 1% to 53.2 million, revenue increased by 2% to $35.7 billion and, above all, net profit reached an unprecedented level of $5.4 billion. The load factor fell slightly to 78.4%, compared to 78.9% the previous year, but yield increased by 4%, representing revenue of $10.4 per passenger kilometre transported. This avalanche of figures leaves us dreaming, as it clearly demonstrates the company’s outstanding performance. Emirates also maintains a highly prosperous net cash position of $15 billion, allowing it to cover its fuel purchases over a long period and greatly mitigate the effects of oil price spikes. In total, the company generated a net profit equivalent to 15% of its turnover, representing one of the best performances ever seen in air transport.

This is the result of a strategy based entirely on service quality and reasonable pricing. It relies on the regular renewal of its fleet, which currently numbers 277 long-haul aircraft, as well as strong cooperation with dnata, its parent company, which manages among other things airport activities in Dubai.

I also note that product improvement has become a constant in today’s air transport industry. Traditional airlines that had allowed their service quality to decline in order to align fares with those of low-cost carriers are now moving in the opposite direction. It must be recognised that all major carriers have undertaken to rethink their products, from airport access to in-flight services. So much so that airlines which had abandoned the concept of first class are now in the process of reintroducing it. I also note that improving service quality in premium cabins inevitably benefits economy class as well and gives crews a greater sense of pride, encouraging them to interact even better with customers. This strongly resembles the beginning of a virtuous cycle that can only be welcomed.

Low-cost airlines have also followed this new direction. We can even see American operators such as JetBlue opening lounges in airports. These same low-cost carriers are now embracing distribution through travel agents and GDSs, something they had fiercely resisted until now. We even see an airline such as Ryanair, long known for defending the lowest possible fares through the support of local authorities, backtracking in the face of the growing need to abandon practices that once made it successful. Public subsidies will indeed be completely banned in Europe, at least.

Conversely, proponents of ultra-low fares may struggle to survive. A major operator such as Spirit Airlines was forced to shut down because the support it expected from the federal authorities, promised by Donald Trump, ultimately failed to materialise. In Europe, carriers known for very low fares such as Wizz Air or Volotea also have reason for concern, although they provide a valuable service by operating routes abandoned by traditional airlines. Without public support, it is difficult to see how they will withstand the impact of rising Jet A1 fuel prices, since they have little or no protection against fuel price increases, unlike the major carriers.

To overcome these difficulties, relations between so-called regional airlines and local authorities may need to be fundamentally rethought. Rather than granting subsidies, which are clearly unsustainable, regional authorities would be better advised to purchase air services from carriers through competitive tenders, with revenues managed by the contracting authority. However, this may require a revision of existing public regulations. Such a procedure already applies to regional rail transport, and it is difficult to see why it should not also be extended to air transport.

A prosperous air transport industry is possible provided that we avoid excesses and accept that every service has a real cost, and that selling below that cost is ultimately suicidal.

The impact of the Gulf conflict on aviation is not simple, and the constant reversals of the actors make it impossible to make predictions about the end of the crisis. The complexity is all the more important for air transport as this conflict comes on top of the war between Russia and Ukraine, which has entered its fifth year. We never end. It is nevertheless curious that the belligerents have so much difficulty in sitting around a table to find an agreement since, in the end, they will be forced to do so. The consequences for airlines are not trivial.

First of all, there is the recurrent problem of fuel supply. A very good article in Air Journal sheds light on the European situation. 70% of the jet fuel consumed in Europe comes from the Middle East and, in particular, from the Al Zour complex in Kuwait. It is clear that this source of supply of Jet A or Jet A1 will be significantly reduced as long as the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened to navigation, and this may take several months after the end of hostilities, which is not for tomorrow. But the Persian Gulf is not the only potential supplier. The United States has come to the rescue and, while only 3% of European supplies came from this country before the conflict, the amount is now 40%. And it is possible to find new sources. However, it is quite possible that the price will remain at a very high level while transporters had become accustomed to a reasonable rate, around $65 per barrel, while it is around $100, and this may be for a long time. So the companies will have to redo their cost price calculations and therefore their public tariffs.

And here is another parameter. If, as one might think, prices will increase by around 10% to 15% to compensate for both fuel costs and longer flight times, especially between Europe and Asia, it is possible that this will slow down travel enthusiasm and that trips scheduled for leisure will simply be postponed, as air consumers are content with ground travel. On the other hand, we have the experience of coming out of Covid. The carriers did not hesitate to increase fares by around 30%, and in the end this was rather well accepted by customers, proof, if ever there was one, that the race for the lowest fares is and remains a stupidity that air transport will have to get rid of.

But there is something more diffuse, and that is fear. It is known that 50% of passengers have a more or less diffuse fear of planes. Some even have anxiety attacks, and it is not the obstacle course they have to endure in airports that will reassure them. So if we add to this form of anxiety the fear of being attacked by a drone or a lost missile, this can greatly influence consumer behavior. This is all the more pernicious because, even if the possibilities of hitting a civilian aircraft in the event of war are extremely rare, the examples are very real, between the Malaysian Airlines aircraft shot down over Ukraine by pro-Russian partisans, the Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer 190 hit by a Russian air defense error again, or even when an Iranian Airbus A300 was hit by an American missile strike, but that was in 1988. In short, we must not play with the nerves of the soldiers in charge of anti-aircraft defense.

However, should air transport fear for its future, even in the short term? I am not convinced of that. Even if there could be a certain restriction of flights here and there, it would be surprising if it took on large proportions. On the other hand, carriers may be tempted to group together flights that are not well filled, especially when the services are very dense, such as the transatlantic axis. And let’s keep in mind that passengers for tourist reasons don’t just travel by plane; they have also bought their stays and booked their hotels and other tourist activities a long time ago to benefit from the lowest rates. They will have a hard time cancelling their holidays. It would therefore be surprising if air transport were to sink significantly. On the other hand, it is likely that the Middle Eastern destinations that were becoming very popular, I am thinking in particular of the Emirates, will be largely abandoned as long as the conflict lasts, even if the starting prices are such that they can compensate for the fear of going to these destinations. This could benefit certain Asian, African, and Caribbean countries.

However, let us rely on the imagination of hard-hit countries to find solutions. They have shown their resilience in the past.

We had gotten too used to it. Public pressure, unbridled competition between carriers, tremendous technological advances, the arrival of “low-costs” and the all-too-famous “yield management” have led to an almost constant decline in air fares, especially from the mid-1990s. And we had gotten used to it to such an extent that it was impossible to imagine the prices that passengers paid in the 1970s, which saw the appearance of mass transport with the arrival of very large aircraft. Well, those days are over, at least for a number of years.

Of course, manufacturers will continue their efforts to provide even more efficient devices, engine manufacturers are developing even more economical and less noisy machines, but all this comes at a price. Politicians in a hurry to give ecological guarantees to their voters are continuing their pressure on airlines by forcing them to become even quieter, and above all, to land at large airports without being detected. In other words, they are willing to use air transport on the condition that it does not harm the behaviour of the populations living near airports, and that the environmental lobbies have nothing to complain about, all the while demanding ever more competitive fares and even better services.

However, geopolitics is an essential component of air transport and sometimes, as is the case now, it creates a particularly delicate environment. The first effect of the current Gulf conflict has been a massive increase in the cost of oil and gas. While the price of a barrel had been stabilised at around $70 for at least a year, it has soared sharply since the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, to quote $112.66 at the time of writing. And airlines felt obliged to put the famous fuel surcharges back into circulation. And they didn’t go down without a fight. I have in mind the case of a long-haul company whose starting price is around €750 and which has added a fuel surcharge of €550, i.e. 73% of the promotional rate on which it relies to attract consumers. It is not the only one, and most operators do the same, even if not in the same proportions.

And I wonder why carriers, who are perfectly capable of adjusting their rates by the minute, choose the fuel surcharge method to charge for an inevitable increase in their cost price. It would be more honest, let’s say the word, to display the new price directly rather than maintaining the promotional hooks. It’s still taking consumers for fools. This practice is all the more curious because most carriers scream before they hurt. The largest of them practice “hedging”, which consists of protecting themselves from hazards by buying their fuel well in advance. Air France/KLM has covered its oil needs for the first half of 2026 at 87%, and Lufthansa is doing the same at 76%. That is to say, these companies do not feel the increase in the price of a barrel of oil while they make their passengers bear it, while camouflaging this increase in a fuel surcharge, thinking that consumers will accept this approach.

We can clearly see the strategy of operators who are afraid to display the true selling price, which would cause them to lose valuable positions in price comparison sites that essentially display call rates. However, customers will still have a little trouble admitting that, from a displayed price that could suit them, they end up having to pay an amount much higher than the advertised price.

I understand very well that airlines, whose economic balance is very fragile and whose profits are less than 10% of their turnover, unlike many other sectors of activity which gravitate above 20%, are very sensitive to anything that could cause their cost price to vary. It should be remembered that the price of fuel normally represents around 20% of turnover with oil at 70 dollars per barrel, but that it can easily exceed 30% in the event of a sudden and lasting sharp increase.

It remains to be seen whether the current conflict will last, in which case the carriers will have been right to familiarise their customers with this increase. If not, let’s hope that the operators will fight to be the first to stop these fuel surcharges while explaining that the time of continuous price reductions is over, at least for a long time.