The world’s largest travel and tourism firm swung to a €17m airline loss

Tui has reported a fall in earnings at its airlines division as the Iran conflict continues to cause significant disruption to global tourism routes and drive up fuel costs.

The Frankfurt-listed group, the world’s largest travel and tourism company, swung to a €17m loss in its airlines arm in the six months to June, reversing a €50m profit recorded in the same period the previous year.

“This development was driven by weaker demand as a result of geopolitical developments and increased price pressure in a market environment characterised by higher fuel costs and additional capacity on the market,” the group said.

Tui’s airline revenue fell by eight per cent to €4.9bn over the period, although turnover climbed in its hotels, resorts and cruise divisions.

The group’s overall revenue dropped by six per cent to €5.8bn, while its underlying group profit declined 27 per cent year on year to €235m, falling short of analyst expectations of €274m, as reported by City AM.

“The quarter continued to be characterised by a challenging market environment and ongoing geopolitical uncertainties, in particular the war in Iran, economic weakness in Europe’s core markets and consumer caution evident across many sectors,” Tui told shareholders.

The group’s ‘musements’ division, which offers tours and activities, proved a rare bright spot for Tui, recording a nine per cent rise in underlying profit to €22.7m.

Sebastian Ebel, the firm’s chief executive, maintained that Tui has “held its own well in a difficult global environment”. “Wars and geopolitical tensions, consumer caution, economic weakness and rising inflation in Europe’s core markets – all these factors have influenced consumer sentiment and the timing of purchasing decisions,” he added.

Ebel noted that booking behaviour has been “picking up again” over the past few weeks, but acknowledged that holidaymakers are purchasing tickets at the last minute in an attempt to sidestep the travel disruption caused by the Iran war.

Shares in Tui fell by three per cent to €7 in early trading, leaving the stock down 21 per cent since the start of the year.

Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Tui’s investors “may feel they need a holiday” following Wednesday’s turbulent results.

“The weak quarter adds more pressure for a clean landing in the final stretch of the year, and while the runway still remains relatively wide, management is likely to be buckling up for a tricky approach,” he added.

On Tuesday, Holiday Inn owner Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) disclosed that a downturn in revenue across its Middle East operations is weighing on its overall growth.

The hotels group, which also owns the Crowne Plaza and Vignette Collection brands, reported that its revenue per available room declined by 19 per cent year on year in the three months to June.

The FTSE 100 firm informed shareholders that it is contending with “ongoing impacts from the Middle East conflict, including some wider disruption to international travel flows”.

The closing auction is a big ‌market structure ⁠reform ⁠in line with global standards, Tuhin Kanta Pandey said at an event in Mumbai.

“We are considering all inputs to increase ​participation,” Pandey said, adding that any new system requires time to settle and attract more participation.

The ​closing auction is a separate 20-minute ⁠session introduced ‌last week in which exchanges ​collect buy ​and sell orders to determine a ⁠stock’s closing price at a level where the ​maximum volume can be executed.

The mechanism, ​which replaced the previous method of using the average price of trades in the final 30 minutes of regular trading, was introduced to provide a fairer and more transparent closing price ‌and improve execution efficiency for large orders.

Live Events

The change has raised concerns about thinning participation ​and losses ​for some ⁠market players.
Mutual funds’ participation in the new system has risen from around 5%-6% on the first day to ​about 20%-25% since then, the regulator said.

The reform was needed to reduce tracking error for passive funds, he added.

The Welsh Government has announced co-chairs for the taskforce

The Welsh Government has announced co-chairs for a new town centre taskforce, alongside £1m of new funding to support regeneration projects in Bangor and Bridgend.

Tamsin Ramasut and Professor Simon Gibson will lead the taskforce, which will provide practical, expert advice on supporting the future of Wales’s town centres. Their appointment delivers on a key Government commitment to establish the taskforce within its first 100 days.

Working with members from business, local government, regeneration, planning, academia and communities, the co-chairs will oversee a programme of work to develop practical recommendations for Welsh Ministers on securing the future of town centres.

Ms Ramasut is an experienced regeneration, placemaking and community engagement practitioner. Through her work with Pont Collective and previous roles, she has supported the delivery of regeneration projects and place-based initiatives across Wales and beyond.

As the founder of the graduate entrepreneurship Alacrity programme and previous leadership roles in Wesley Clover, Ubiquity Software and the Welsh Development Agency (board member,) Prof Gibson helped attract investment, support entrepreneurship and drive business growth across Wales.

The announcement was made during a visit to Welsh Government funded projects in Bangor town centre, where £654,000 for public realm improvements was also confirmed. A further £350,000 has been confirmed to support the future regeneration of the Rhiw Shopping Centre in Bridgend.

Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Siân Gwenllian, said: “Town centres remain at the heart of communities across Wales. They are places where people work, access services, spend time with family and friends and take part in civic and cultural life.

“However, they continue to face significant challenges as a result of changing consumer behaviour, economic pressures and the evolving role town centres play in everyday life.

“That’s why we are establishing this taskforce to champion the future of Welsh town centres. It will identify actions to help challenge decline, encourage changes in use to increase footfall, support Welsh businesses, attract investment and strengthen the long-term vitality of towns and city centres.”

Ms Ramasut said: “I’m honoured to co-chair this national task force. Town centres are central to thriving communities-places where people connect, local businesses grow and provide employment and create a sense of belonging. I’m looking forward to working collaboratively to help our town centres thrive across Wales.”

Professor Gibson said: “Our town centres are vital to communities and local economies across Wales, yet they face significant challenges that demand urgent action and fresh thinking.

” I am pleased to co-chair this taskforce, which brings together leaders from across sectors to develop innovative, practical solutions that remove barriers to growth, preserve presence and help create more vibrant, resilient town centres fit for the 21st century.”

N Chandrasekaran, the chairman of Tata Group, has said that he will not seek reappointment when his term ends in February.

The 63-year-old said the decision came after the board of Tata Sons could not reach a resolution on a five-year extension of his term, months after the proposal first came up.

The news sent shares of listed Tata companies plunging and has led to questions over what lies ahead for the gigantic salt-to-steel conglomerate that owns Air India, Tata Steel and Jaguar Land Rover.

Chandrasekaran’s resignation, which comes days ahead of Tata Sons’ annual general meeting, points to tensions that have been playing out for months after a boardroom power battle erupted between trustees.

The Tata Group is uniquely structured – a charitable arm called Tata Trusts owns 66% of the group’s parent company, Tata Sons. This has given the group tax and regulatory advantages, and allows it to carry out charitable activities, but experts say that its dual non-profit and commercial objectives have sometimes led to governance issues.

Tata Trusts has three nominees on the Tata Sons board. Reports have said that the board members have disagreed over issues such as board nominations, funding approvals and the public listing of Tata Sons. The group has not publicly commented on the discord.

The internal rifts threatened to distract the group while it was facing severe business headwinds including the revival of Air India, which it bought from the Indian government in 2022.

When the proposal for his extension was brought before the board in February, one board member did not support it, Chandrasekaran said in his statement without naming the person.

“In the absence of unanimous support, I chose to defer the decision,” he said, adding that there was no resolution even six months later.

“Tata Sons is a very large institution and there are many strategic projects that are under critical stages of execution. It is not only necessary to have a leader in place to lead the Group beyond Feb 2027, but also clarity on leadership is important for employees, investors, partners and other stakeholders,” he said.

Chandrasekaran was named the group’s chairman in 2017. He replaced the late Cyrus Mistry, whose abrupt removal from the post months earlier had triggered a bitter legal battle.

Before becoming chairman, Chandrasekaran was the CEO and managing director of the group’s high-profile global IT service provider, Tata Consultancy Services. He joined the group in 1987 – a 2017 press release announcing his appointment as chairman described him as a “Tata lifer”.

Ambareesh Baliga, an independent market analyst, said that when a person with Chandrasekaran’s stature stepped down like this, it was inevitable that the markets would react negatively.

“However, they have six months to find a good successor,” he said, adding that he thought it likely that the next leader would be chosen from within the group.

William Catlett is the founder of William A. Catlett, L.L.C., a St. Louis-based law practice that has served individuals and families for more than three decades.

Licensed to practise law in Missouri, Illinois and Kansas, he has built a career helping clients through complex legal matters including family law, bankruptcy, guardianships, probate administration, criminal defence and mental illness proceedings.

After earning his Juris Doctor from Saint Louis University School of Law, Catlett began his legal career as an associate attorney and opened his own practice in 1997. Throughout his career, he has focused on protecting clients’ rights while helping them understand the legal process. His approach is centred on clear communication, practical advice, and careful preparation rather than unnecessary complexity.

Beyond private practice, Catlett has served in several public-facing legal roles. He is regularly appointed to represent individuals in involuntary commitment and guardianship proceedings throughout the St. Louis area. Since 2017, he has also served as a Court Testimonial Trainer for resident physicians at major hospitals, helping medical professionals prepare to give effective evidence during court proceedings.

His broad experience extends beyond the courtroom. William Catlett was formerly licensed as both a title agent and a real estate broker, giving him additional insight into property and financial matters that often intersect with legal disputes.

Throughout his career, Catlett has remained guided by one principle: every client deserves honesty, transparency, and an advocate who places their interests first. His commitment to protecting legal rights and finding practical solutions has earned him a reputation as a trusted leader within Missouri’s legal community.

What first inspired you to pursue a career in law?

I’ve always been interested in solving problems that have a real impact on people’s lives. Law allows you to help someone through situations that are often stressful and uncertain. From the beginning, I wanted to build a career where I could guide people through those challenges while making sure their rights were protected.

How did your career develop after law school?

Prior to graduating from Saint Louis University School of Law, I was a law clerk at the City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office.  Following graduation, I worked with a private law firm as an associate attorney. Those early experiences allowed me to see the legal system from different perspectives before becoming an associate attorney. In 1997, I opened my own practice, and that allowed me to build the kind of law firm I had always envisioned.

Many attorneys focus on one area of law. Why did you choose such a broad practice?

Life doesn’t fit neatly into legal categories. Someone going through a divorce may also be dealing with financial difficulties. A guardianship matter might involve probate issues. Real estate questions can arise during family disputes. I wanted to understand how these areas connect so I could look at the whole picture instead of treating each legal issue in isolation.

Your practice includes guardianships and involuntary commitment proceedings. What have those experiences taught you?

Those cases remind you how significant the legal system can be in someone’s life. You’re often dealing with questions about personal liberty, family relationships and long-term wellbeing. They require careful preparation because every decision can have lasting consequences. That responsibility has reinforced the importance of listening carefully, communicating clearly and paying close attention to the facts.

You also train physicians to testify in court. How did that opportunity come about?

Over time, my work in mental illness proceedings led to opportunities to work more closely with medical professionals. Since 2017, I’ve served as a Court Testimonial Trainer for resident physicians. My role is to help them understand what to expect when they testify and how to communicate medical information clearly in a courtroom. It’s rewarding because effective testimony helps judges make informed decisions.

What do clients value most when working with an attorney?

I believe they want honesty. Most people aren’t looking for complicated legal language. They want someone who will explain the process, answer their questions and give them realistic expectations. I always try to speak with clients in plain language instead of talking over their heads.

You’ve been practising for more than three decades. What has stayed consistent throughout your career?

My priorities haven’t changed very much. My job is to protect my client’s interests while helping them understand the legal process. Every case is different, but that responsibility stays the same whether I’m handling a family law matter, a bankruptcy case or a guardianship proceeding.

How has your experience outside traditional legal practice influenced your work?

Earlier in my career, I was also licensed as a title agent and a real estate broker in Missouri and Illinois. That experience gave me a broader understanding of property transactions and financial matters that often appear in legal disputes. Having that background allows me to recognise issues that someone with a narrower focus might overlook.

What do you think defines good leadership in the legal profession?

Leadership starts with responsibility. Clients trust you with some of the most important situations they’ll ever face. That means being prepared, communicating openly and putting their interests ahead of your own. Experience is valuable, but integrity is what earns trust over time.

After more than thirty years, what continues to motivate you?

Every client comes to you with a different story. Even after all these years, no two cases are exactly alike. I still enjoy helping people understand their options and working towards practical solutions. Success isn’t about winning every argument. It’s about achieving the best possible outcome for the client while making sure the legal system respects their rights.

The company is leading the race to develop an all-electric vertical take-off and landing (EVTOL) aircraft

A Bristol-based company working to develop a ‘flying taxi’ has secured a fresh $100m cash injection. Vertical Aerospace said it would use the finance package to carry out a design review, open a new energy centre for battery production and retrofit the firm’s third prototype for hybrid-electric flight testing in the first half of 2027.

The New York-listed company is also planning to fund a production facility in the UK in future.

The finance package included $40m from US-based Mudrick Capital Management and a $25m issuance from Yorkville Advisors – two major current stakeholders – as well as a $35m equity investment from new and existing investors.

It is understood the deal is being managed by bankers at Jefferies.

Stuart Simpson, chief executive of Vertical Aerospace, said: “We are focused on converting operational progress and partner engagement into continued advancement of our certification and commercialisation strategy.

“The support, reflected in these financings via new investors alongside further commitments from existing investors, demonstrates strong confidence in Vertical’s market position and progress, providing near-term flexibility to execute the next phase of our plan.”

Vertical Aerospace was set up by Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick a decade ago and is based on Chapel St in Bristol. The business floated on the New York Stock Exchange in 2021 and is leading the race to develop an all-electric vertical take-off and landing (EVTOL) aircraft.

The latest injection of capital follows a period of operational and commercial momentum for the company which earlier this year became only the second firm of its kind to complete a piloted transition flight in a full-scale tiltrotor eVTOL.

In July, Vertical also carried out a number of demonstrations at Farnborough Air Show, including the first public piloted eVTOL flight, showcasing how its aircraft will operate in real-world environments.

Last year, the company said its aircraft could be ready for commercial use by 2028 if it secured financing. Vertical is planning to build a factory at Cotswold Airport, near Kemble in Gloucestershire, next to its existing flight test centre.

The business is already in advanced discussions with the UK government about a grant worth up to £10m to support the development of production facilities in Britain. It said this week it had also received “confirmed interest” from the Ministry of Defence in its hybrid-electric and autonomous capabilities.

Manual invoice checking often works well when a business is small and transaction volumes are predictable. The trouble starts when the same two or three people are approving supplier invoices, reconciling payments, answering internal queries and reviewing shipping charges at the same time.

Carrier invoices are particularly difficult because the final billed amount can contain adjustments that were not present when the shipment was created. A reviewer may confirm that the invoice total looks reasonable without ever testing whether the individual shipments were billed correctly.

Reviewers Start Looking for Big Errors and Miss Repeated Small Ones

After checking several pages of an invoice, people naturally begin focusing on numbers that look unusual. A $400 discrepancy attracts attention; an extra $3.80 usually does not. Yet carrier billing problems often live in those smaller adjustments.

Canada Post, for example, can reweigh and remeasure parcels during processing, with resulting corrections appearing on the bill. A small accounts team checking invoices visually may approve dozens of minor weight or volumetric adjustments because each seems plausible individually. The real problem becomes visible only when those adjustments are grouped by package type, service or shipping location. What looked like harmless rounding can turn out to be a recurring measurement or billing issue.

The Invoice Gets Checked Against Itself

One of the biggest weaknesses of manual review is surprisingly simple: the invoice often becomes its own source of truth. An employee checks the subtotal, confirms taxes, scans the shipment descriptions and makes sure the final figure adds up. Mathematically, everything works. That does not establish that the charges were correct.

A proper Canada post shipping audit needs a second version of events: shipment records, declared dimensions and weight, service selected, origin and destination information, and applicable rates or contract terms. That distinction matters because Canada Post can base charges on its own audit and place resulting price adjustments on a current or later invoice. Without shipment-level comparison, an accounts employee may verify the carrier’s arithmetic rather than verify the carrier’s billing.

Yesterday’s Exception Becomes Tomorrow’s Normal Charge

Small finance teams develop useful shortcuts. They remember that a particular surcharge appears frequently, that one warehouse tends to generate heavier parcels, or that certain shipments usually cost more. The danger is that familiarity gradually replaces verification.

Suppose the same package repeatedly receives a volumetric adjustment. Canada Post calculates parcel pricing using the greater of physical weight and volumetric equivalent, and its systems can verify parcel dimensions after induction. After seeing that adjustment for several weeks, a reviewer may simply expect it. But repetition could point to oversized packaging, inaccurate warehouse measurements or a discrepancy worth investigating. Manual checking is particularly weak at distinguishing a legitimate recurring cost from a recurring problem.

Final Thoughts

The weakness of manual invoice checking is not that accounts staff are careless. It is that carrier invoices contain more variables than a person can reliably compare line by line while handling the rest of a busy finance workload. Weight corrections, volumetric adjustments and later billing changes can all look perfectly ordinary on an invoice. For small teams, the better approach is to make review exception-driven: compare carrier charges with original shipment data, identify recurring patterns and spend human attention on discrepancies that actually need investigation.