Originally published at: Flight Cancellations Tied To Tariffs - AVweb
Alaska cancels flights and Delta talks about it in wake of tariff imposition.
You flagged some key moves, Russ – but the larger picture needs grounding.
What’s the endgame? If the goal is to push foreign manufacturers or boost U.S. aircraft production, the tools don’t match the target. Boeing isn’t ready to step in, it has delays on the 737 MAX, 787, and 777X, and no regional jet to replace the Embraer 175. There is no domestic alternative.
Who benefits? In practice, no one yet. Airbus and Embraer aren’t budging. U.S. airlines are delaying deliveries. Passengers are losing flights.
Who pays? U.S. carriers eat higher costs or cancel deliveries. Alaska dropped two E175s and cut 14 flights per week. Delta had to route an A350 through Japan just to dodge a tariff. Those costs get passed down, fewer seats, higher fares, thinner service in smaller markets.
How long can this go on? Not long without real impact. Airlines run tight margins and long lead times. Disrupting supply chains without domestic replacements just shrinks the fleet and limits growth.
This isn’t a policy that reshapes the market. It’s a drag on the system where domestic passengers, not foreign OEMs, are feeling first.
An airline is canceling 14 flights a week because they refuse to fly their existing aircraft on their existing routes? These 14 flights it canceled happen to be all on routes that have other flights?
Why can’t airlines just say that it will lose money either way (with old or new planes) on this route and be done with it?
They had planned on flying some number of routes with a certain number of aircraft. Now that they are planning on having fewer aircraft available, you are surprised that they are reducing their planned routes?
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.