The Trump administration has ordered a halt on any new Mexican airline routes from the two Mexico City airports as well as the dissolution of the Delta-Aeromexico joint venture, both in response to cuts the Mexican government imposed in 2022 and 2023 at the primary Mexico City airport into the U.S. The administration has also warned the Netherlands government against new cuts at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, similar to objections raised by the Biden administration. At IATA's Global Media Day last month in Geneva, airlines editor Robert Silk asked IATA director general Willie Walsh about his views on the administration's posture relating to access in the skies.
Willie Walsh
Q: The Trump administration's press release announcing that the DOT would end the Delta-Aeromexico antitrust-immune joint venture referred to the action as a demonstration of the president's "America First agenda in our skies." Are you concerned the U.S. is on a course toward air travel protectionism?
A: You could argue they are doing both. In taking action against Schiphol and taking action against Mexico, they are defending open skies. What they are doing is saying we are defending the ability to continue to operate as we have done and the measures that were taken to reduce slots were actually against the open-skies agreements that have been put in place. [The airlines] have clearly got an ally in the White House. And they want to maximize the strength of that ally in terms of some of commercial negotiations and their interests.
There is nothing new in that. I've seen that under other administrations, as well. It's absolutely the norm for U.S. carriers to try and utilize the White House to progress some of their issues. So I don't see it as being any different. Maybe it's a bit more obvious and a bit more impactful under the Trump administration. But I've seen it under the Obama administration, under the Clinton administration, under the Bush administration. It's always been the case that the administration in the U.S. will fight for their airlines. I'd love to see some other governments fight for their airlines in the way of the U.S.
Q: An exception, though, would be Delta-Aeromexico. Clearly Delta does not view this as the administration fighting for them.
A: But the other carriers would. I'm in favor of these immunized joint ventures. They're not as good as having full consolidation on a cross-border basis. But in the absence of being able to do this, these immunized joint ventures I think are a positive development. So it's a pity when you see them threatened and undermined, but it's not the first time. Europe does it, as well. Maybe it doesn't get as much notice, but Europe and even the U.K., where you've had these joint ventures in place, the competition regulator under a new government decides they want to investigate it again and re-evaluate whether the consumer benefit has been delivered in the way that was promised.
I don't think these steps are unique to this administration or to the U.S. It's probably that there's more attention being paid to the actions that this administration has taken. But in my experience as an airline CEO, I've been on the receiving end of this under previous administrations, as well.
Q: Can you give an example from a previous U.S. administration?
A: Some of this would not be public, but in negotiations that have taken place on the structure of some of the joint ventures, the U.S. administration has been active in terms of the evaluation of the commercial structure that is being put in place, whereas governments at the other end haven't been. They haven't taken an interest in it.
Q: Which administration?
A: As I've said, I've seen it under several administrations.