Airlines are facing a sharp rise in operating costs after jet fuel prices surged to their highest level in more than three years amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, raising fears of prolonged disruption to global energy supplies.

The price of aviation kerosene in European markets has climbed to levels not seen since the shortages triggered during the Covid-19 pandemic, placing immediate pressure on airline margins and sending aviation stocks lower.

The spike has been particularly severe because jet fuel prices have moved far beyond the rise in crude oil prices. Brent crude has climbed by more than 10 per cent this week to around $78.60 per barrel and is roughly 20 per cent higher than it was a fortnight ago. However, the cost of jet fuel delivered to airlines has risen significantly faster, creating an unprecedented gap between aviation fuel and crude oil benchmarks.

According to commodity pricing specialists Argus Media, the cost of jet fuel physically supplied to airlines has increased by about 23 per cent over the past week alone. The price is now 48 per cent higher than last Friday and has surged by 68 per cent over the past month.

Market participants have described trading conditions as highly unstable. Analysts said the jet fuel market had entered a period of extreme volatility as traders struggled to price in the risks created by military tensions in the Gulf.

Amaar Khan, an analyst at Argus Media, said the current market dynamics were extraordinary. Even though supply risks linked to the conflict are real, he said traders believed the current price spike had become detached from normal supply-and-demand fundamentals. One trader described the situation as “absolute chaos”, noting that “no fundamentals can explain these prices”.

The aviation sector’s exposure to the Middle East has amplified the shock. European airlines depend heavily on jet fuel imports from the Gulf region, with a significant share of those shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime energy corridors.

Industry data suggests that at least 40 per cent of Europe’s jet fuel imports last year originated from the Middle East Gulf region and travelled through the strait. Kuwait alone accounted for a substantial portion of these supplies and remains Europe’s largest single supplier of aviation fuel.

The Strait of Hormuz has effectively become a flashpoint for global energy markets after Iran imposed a blockade in response to military attacks carried out by the United States and Israel. The narrow waterway, which sits between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, serves as the primary export route for oil and gas shipments from the Persian Gulf.

Any sustained disruption to traffic through the strait could severely restrict global fuel supplies, particularly for jet fuel, which is already in tight supply across Europe.

Analysts warned that while European refineries could increase their production of jet fuel to offset some of the disruption, they would struggle to replace Gulf imports entirely if the conflict continued.

Argus noted that Europe’s aviation fuel market had already become structurally tighter in recent years due to rising travel demand following the pandemic recovery. With refiners operating near capacity, there is limited scope to increase output quickly enough to compensate for any prolonged interruption to Gulf shipments.

At the same time, the cost of transporting fuel from alternative regions has also risen sharply. Freight rates for tanker shipments have surged as insurers raise premiums on vessels travelling through conflict-affected waters, making imports from other regions significantly more expensive.

The result has been a dramatic increase in jet fuel prices relative to crude oil. Aviation fuel is now trading at almost double the price of Brent crude, a differential that analysts say has never previously been recorded.

For airlines, the timing of the price spike is particularly challenging because fuel typically represents between 25 and 35 per cent of operating costs. Even short-term volatility can therefore have a significant impact on profitability.

Shares of European airline groups have already reacted to the rising costs and growing uncertainty surrounding Middle Eastern airspace.

International Airlines Group has seen its share price fall about 16 per cent from the record high it reached last week when it reported strong annual results. The airline group, which owns carriers including British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, faces both higher fuel costs and operational disruptions on long-haul routes through the region.

Budget airline easyJet has also seen its shares fall around 6 per cent this week. The carrier does not operate routes directly in the Middle East but remains vulnerable to rising fuel costs across the industry. Its stock had already been under pressure, declining roughly 15 per cent since the start of the year.

Meanwhile Wizz Air warned that the conflict could cut €50 million from its annual profits due to cancelled regional flights and adverse movements in fuel and currency costs. The airline has said the combined impact could push it into a full-year loss, with its shares dropping about 20 per cent over the past week.

Airlines have sought to protect themselves from fuel volatility through hedging strategies that lock in fuel purchases months or even years in advance. These hedges can soften the immediate impact of price spikes but cannot fully shield carriers if elevated costs persist for a prolonged period.

Europe’s largest airline by passenger numbers, Ryanair, recently confirmed that it has forward-purchased approximately 80 per cent of its jet fuel requirements at an average price of $67 per barrel through to March 2027.

International Airlines Group has also hedged a large portion of its future fuel consumption, locking in prices for around 62 per cent of its fuel needs for 2026.

Similarly, easyJet said it has hedged about 62 per cent of its fuel requirements for the upcoming summer season at an average price of $68.80 per barrel.

While these measures provide some protection against sudden spikes, analysts warn that sustained price increases would still filter through into airline costs over time as hedges expire and new contracts are negotiated.

Industry observers say the key factor determining how severe the crisis becomes will be the duration of the disruption to Gulf energy flows and whether shipping through the Strait of Hormuz can resume safely.

If the blockade persists or the conflict spreads further across the region, aviation fuel prices could remain elevated for months, forcing airlines to absorb higher costs or pass them on to passengers through higher ticket prices.

For now, airlines and investors alike are watching energy markets closely as geopolitical tensions continue to ripple through the global aviation industry.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

Ford is recalling more than 615,000 vehicles in the U.S. over two separate safety defects involving windshield wiper motors and driveshaft components, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The larger recall covers 604,533 vehicles because a front windshield wiper motor defect could cause the wipers to operate intermittently or fail entirely, reducing visibility and increasing the risk of a crash, NHTSA filings show.

The recall includes certain 2020–2022 Ford Explorer and Escape models, along with 2020–2022 Lincoln Aviator and Lincoln Corsair vehicles built between July 6, 2020, and Dec. 15, 2021.

A Ford Explorer at the Ford Chicago Assembly Plant where the Ford Explorer and Lincoln Aviator sport utility vehicles are worked on. (Jose M. Osorio/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

According to the Part 573 safety report, the issue stems from a condition in which the motor’s cover terminal may have been misaligned with the brush card terminal during assembly, potentially creating a poor electrical connection that can lead to a loss of electrical continuity over time. Front wiper functionality may be intermittent before progressing to complete inoperability.

FORD RECALLS MORE THAN 412,000 VEHICLES OVER SUSPENSION ISSUE

Ford has identified 1,374 warranty claims related to inoperative or intermittent windshield wiper motors within the affected population as of Feb. 18, 2026, but said it is not aware of any reports of crashes or injuries tied to the condition. The estimated defect rate is about 1% of the recalled population.

A 2020 Ford Explorer ST in motion. (Ford Motor Co.)

The recall is listed under NHTSA Campaign Number 26V117, and Ford’s internal recall number is 26S14.

Dealers will inspect and replace the front wiper motors as necessary, free of charge. Dealer notification began March 4, 2026, and interim owner notification letters are expected to be mailed between March 9 and March 13, 2026. A second notice will be sent once a final remedy is available, anticipated between May 11 and May 15, 2026.

HYUNDAI RECALLS NEARLY 569K SUVS OVER FAULTY AIRBAGS

Ford has instructed dealers not to demonstrate or deliver new in-stock vehicles covered by the recall until repairs are completed. Federal law requires recall repairs to be completed before delivery to buyers.

Owners can contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332 or check their vehicle identification number on NHTSA.gov, where affected VINs became searchable on March 4, 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Separately, Ford is also recalling 11,431 US vehicles because the driveshaft’s friction weld may fail, which could result in rear driveshaft separation and a sudden loss of drive power, NHTSA said. Dealers will repair that issue at no cost to owners.

Pop icon Britney Spears was arrested late Wednesday on suspicion of driving under the influence in Ventura County, authorities confirmed Thursday, March 5, 2026, marking a new legal challenge for the 44-year-old singer amid her ongoing personal recovery post-conservatorship.

The California Highway Patrol pulled over Spears around 9:28 p.m. PT on March 4, according to Ventura County Sheriff’s Office booking records and multiple law enforcement sources. She was handcuffed and transported for booking, arriving at the county jail shortly after 3 a.m. Thursday. Spears was released at approximately 6:07 a.m. under California’s “cite and release” process, common for misdemeanor DUI cases where suspects are issued a citation and released pending court appearance rather than held on bail.

Publicly available inmate records list Spears’ occupation simply as “celebrity” and do not detail specific charges or field sobriety test results. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office has not released an official statement or arrest report as of midday Thursday, and the California Highway Patrol referred inquiries to the sheriff’s department. Sources familiar with the incident told TMZ and other outlets that the stop stemmed from observed erratic driving, though no additional details on the traffic violation or chemical test results have been made public.

Spears is scheduled to appear in Ventura County Superior Court on May 4, 2026, to address the charges, per court documents reviewed by several news organizations. If convicted of misdemeanor DUI, she could face fines, probation, mandatory alcohol education programs, license suspension and possible community service, depending on priors and circumstances.

The arrest comes after a period of relative quiet for Spears following her conservatorship’s end in November 2021. In recent months, she sold a stake in her music catalog to Primary Wave in a deal estimated around $200 million, announced in February 2026. She was spotted running errands in casual attire shortly after, appearing low-key in public outings. Earlier in January 2026, Spears posted that she would “never perform in the U.S. again because of extremely sensitive reasons,” though she hinted at possible future shows in the UK or Australia, potentially with her son Jayden Federline.

Representatives for Spears did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. The singer has maintained an active social media presence, often sharing dance videos and personal reflections, but has not addressed the incident publicly as of midday March 5.

This marks Spears’ first reported DUI arrest. Past incidents involving driving drew scrutiny, including a 2025 video of erratic driving after a restaurant visit that sparked concern but led to no charges. In that case, a restaurant manager insisted she “was not intoxicated” and described her as “super chill.” Her ex-husband Justin Timberlake faced a high-profile DWI arrest in 2024, prompting Spears to post a cryptic cocktail photo that some interpreted as shading him, though she never commented directly.

The latest development revives discussions about Spears’ well-being and privacy in the years since her conservatorship battle became a global #FreeBritney movement. Fans and advocates expressed concern online, with many urging compassion amid speculation about the circumstances of the stop. Others noted the quick release suggested no aggravating factors like injury or high blood-alcohol levels.

California law treats first-time DUI offenses as misdemeanors unless aggravating circumstances apply, such as injury, child endangerment or extreme intoxication. Penalties can escalate with priors, but Spears has no known prior DUI convictions.

Law enforcement sources emphasized the investigation remains ongoing, with possible toxicology results pending. The incident occurred in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles, an area Spears has frequented in recent years for its quieter lifestyle compared to central L.A.

As news spread Thursday, media outlets reported heavy online traffic and fan reactions ranging from support to worry. The arrest underscores the challenges celebrities face with public scrutiny over personal matters, particularly for Spears, whose life has been under intense examination for decades.

Spears’ legal team is expected to address the matter soon, potentially seeking diversion programs or reduced charges common in misdemeanor cases. For now, the focus remains on her court date in May and any further developments from authorities.

The pop star’s career highlights include global hits like “…Baby One More Time” and “Toxic,” with a catalog that continues to generate revenue even as she has stepped back from performing. Her memoir “The Woman in Me,” released in 2023, detailed struggles during the conservatorship and personal life.

As the story develops, Spears’ representatives and family have not issued statements. Supporters continue to monitor for updates while respecting her privacy in this latest chapter.

The United States is expected to raise its global tariff rate to 15 per cent in the coming days as the Trump administration moves to restore its controversial trade policies following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down last year’s sweeping import duties.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the higher tariff level was “likely” to be implemented this week, suggesting the White House intends to push ahead with a tougher global trade regime despite the legal challenges that forced officials to rethink their approach.

The new tariff would replace the blanket import duties announced by Donald Trump last year, which had imposed levies on goods from dozens of countries. Those measures were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States after judges ruled that the administration had exceeded its authority by using emergency powers to justify the tariffs.

The decision triggered a rapid response from the White House, which introduced a new global levy of 10 per cent using a different legal mechanism. However, confusion quickly followed after Trump stated on social media that the rate would instead be set at 15 per cent.

In practice, the tariff came into force at the lower level, leaving businesses and governments around the world uncertain about the direction of US trade policy.

Bessent’s latest comments suggest the administration now intends to align policy with Trump’s earlier statements by raising the tariff to the maximum level allowed under the temporary legal authority being used.

Speaking to CNBC, Bessent said he believed tariffs would ultimately return to their previous levels within a matter of months. He argued that the court ruling would not undermine the administration’s broader trade strategy or the revenue the US expects to collect from import duties.

“It’s my strong belief that the tariff rates will be back to their old rate within five months,” he said.

The White House has repeatedly dismissed the significance of the court decision, insisting it has several alternative legal tools available to maintain the tariff regime.

Officials say the policy is central to the administration’s economic strategy, which aims to reduce the US trade deficit, encourage domestic manufacturing and generate revenue to help tackle the country’s growing national debt.

To implement the current tariff, the administration invoked Section 122 of the US Trade Act, a rarely used provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 per cent for a period of up to 150 days without approval from Congress.

The authority is designed to address sudden balance-of-payments crises or major trade imbalances. Because it has rarely been used in modern trade disputes, many legal experts consider the White House’s interpretation of the law to be largely untested.

Section 122 provides the administration with a temporary mechanism to maintain tariffs while it develops a longer-term legal framework for its trade policies.

The White House has indicated that once the 150-day window expires, it intends to rely on other statutes to introduce more permanent tariffs.

These include Section 301 of the Trade Act, which allows the US government to impose duties on countries accused of unfair trade practices, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which permits tariffs on imports deemed to threaten national security.

Both provisions have been used by Trump previously. During his first term in office, the administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports under Section 232 and used Section 301 to introduce duties on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods from China.

Officials have also explored applying these powers to a wider range of sectors, including digital services taxes, pharmaceutical imports and automotive manufacturing.

Unlike the emergency powers struck down by the Supreme Court, these legal tools require the government to follow formal procedures before imposing tariffs.

This typically includes conducting investigations into the industries concerned, presenting evidence to justify the duties and providing businesses with a consultation period to submit feedback before new levies are introduced.

Many businesses say this more structured process would be preferable to the abrupt policy shifts that have characterised recent trade decisions.

Companies involved in international supply chains have repeatedly called for greater clarity and predictability, arguing that sudden tariff announcements make it difficult to plan investments, adjust pricing strategies or secure long-term contracts.

The legal battle over tariffs has also created significant financial uncertainty for the US government.

Companies that paid the original tariffs before they were struck down have begun filing claims seeking reimbursement. Analysts estimate the administration could face refund claims worth as much as $130 billion.

A study by the Cato Institute calculated that the government could also incur substantial interest costs if those refunds are delayed.

According to the institute’s estimates, US taxpayers could be liable for roughly $23 million in interest for every day refunds remain unpaid, potentially reaching around $700 million per month.

The dispute stems from the tariff regime introduced during what Trump described as “Liberation Day” in April last year.

At that time, the administration imposed tariffs ranging from 10 per cent to as high as 50 per cent on imports from dozens of countries. The move sparked a wave of diplomatic negotiations as governments attempted to secure exemptions or reduced tariff rates by offering investment commitments and other concessions.

The sweeping nature of the tariffs triggered a legal challenge that eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the president’s use of emergency powers to justify the duties was unconstitutional during peacetime.

That judgment forced the administration to redesign its trade policy using alternative legal authorities.

The shift to a universal tariff of 10 per cent temporarily placed imports from all countries on equal footing, removing the advantages some trading partners had negotiated after the original “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced.

Countries such as the United Kingdom had previously secured lower tariff rates as part of bilateral negotiations, and the introduction of a flat global tariff effectively erased those concessions.

The potential increase to 15 per cent would mark another escalation in the administration’s trade policy, potentially affecting thousands of exporters and supply chains worldwide.

Economists say the move could have wide-ranging consequences for global trade flows, particularly if the tariffs are extended or made permanent under other legal authorities.

For now, businesses and foreign governments are watching closely as Washington prepares its next steps in reshaping the US tariff regime and redefining its approach to international trade.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high net worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

The Iran war has shaken Dubai’s status as a global wealth hub, as legions of expatriates scramble to escape and family offices and wealth managers reconsider their Middle East footprint.

For the past decade, Dubai has successfully marketed itself as a safe haven for the global elite. Attracted by the sun, safety and tax-free income, Dubai’s millionaire population has doubled since 2014 to more than 81,000, according to Henley & Partners. Dubai’s luxury real-estate market has grown for five straight years, with 500 properties selling last year for more than $10 million – up from just 30 in 2020.

Now, however, Dubai’s reputation for safety has been shattered.

Over the past week, Dubai’s five-star Fairmont The Palm Hotel, on its famed man-made, palm-shaped archipelago, was struck by an explosion. Debris from a downed Iranian drone set fire to Burj Al Arab hotel and the Dubai airport was damaged by a missile strike. On Tuesday, the U.S. Consulate in Dubai was targeted by a suspected drone strike, causing a fire nearby.

“The U.S.-Israel war on Iran is upending that crucial aura of security in Dubai,” said Jim Krane, a fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “Dubai’s economic model is based on expatriate residents providing the brains, brawn and investment capital. You need stability and security to bring in smart foreigners.”

Dubai and the United Arab Emirates sought to quickly reassure investors. The UAE’s National Emergency Crisis and Disasters Management Authority announced Saturday that “the situation was under control.” Dubai’s police force this week threatened to arrest and jail social media influencers who share social content that “contradicts official announcements or that may cause social panic.”

Other wealth hubs in the region — including Abu Dhabi, Doha and Riyadh — are also caught in the fallout of the war. And like Dubai, they’ve made attracting the wealthy a key economic policy. Yet Dubai’s ascendance and dependence on wealth capital stand out in the region. Kane said that’s because Dubai no longer relies on oil revenue like its neighbors, instead banking on the confidence of foreigners.

“The city cannot function if everyone with a foreign passport flees,” he said. “Dubai will literally shut down. Dubai is more exposed to the risks of an expat exodus.”

Dubai is now home to 237 centimillionaires (those worth $100 million or more) and at least 20 billionaires, according to Henley & Partners. An estimated 9,800 millionaires moved to Dubai in 2025, bringing $63 billion in wealth — more than any other country in the world, according to Henley. Most of Dubai’s income wealthy are arriving from the U.K., China, India and other parts of Europe and Asia. With the ruling Maktoum family starting to diversify the economy away from oil decades ago, Dubai created special economic zones and golden visas programs to effectively industrialize wealth attraction as a national strategy.

Dubai has no personal income tax, no capital gains tax and no inheritance tax, making it ideal for the ultra wealthy and family offices. The Dubai International Finance Center (a special economic zone) reported in early January that the top 120 families in the economic zone managed more than $1.2 trillion combined. Last month, the DIFC stated that it was home to 1,289 “family-related entities,” up 61% from a year ago. 

For now, many wealthy families and wealth professionals are focused on getting out. Charter companies report that demand for private jets is far exceeding available seats and flights. Ameerh Naran, CEO of Vimana Private Jets, said on Tuesday that the broker received more than 100 client inquiries overnight. He said he hasn’t seen such demand since the pandemic. A jet from Riyadh to Europe can cost up to $350,000, he said.

He added that the Dubai residents he spoke to are traveling for business meetings, not fleeing to safety.

“They don’t feel unsafe,” he said. “It’s pretty much life as normal was just a bit of extra noise in the background with all these missiles. But life has to go on. They need to travel.”

Dale Buckner, CEO of security firm Global Guardian and a former Green Beret, said the exodus shows no signs of slowing. By Tuesday morning, Buckner had seven corporate clients including large finance and consulting forms looking to evacuate 1,000 to 3,000 employees.

“This looks very much like Ukraine,” he said.

“I think everyone has realized the Iranians are successfully targeting five-star hotels and airports at scale, and now they’re starting to shut down the oil infrastructure,” he said. “I do not believe anyone thought that was possible.”

Many companies and professionals in Dubai said the business case for staying remains strong. And they are careful not to cross the government at a time of crisis. Hasnain Malik, who leads emerging-markets equity and geopolitics strategy at Dubai-based Tellimer, said hedge funds and family offices are mainly drawn to Dubai’s tax, regulatory and stable banking regimes. All those attributes remain in place, he said.

“Those reasons have not changed,” he said. “It is only in one aspect of the lifestyle driver, pristine security, that recent events have called into question.”

Henley & Partners, which helps the wealthy secure visas in other countries, said Dubai has always proven resilient in times of uncertainty. Dominic Volek, group head of private clients at Henley & Partners, said the attacks in Dubai are also a reminder of the importance of geographic hedging.

“Situations like this reinforce a core principle we often discuss with clients: the value of global optionality,” he said. “Internationally mobile families typically diversify their residence and citizenship exposure across multiple regions — including the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia — so they retain flexibility in the face of geopolitical uncertainty, wherever and whenever it may arise. These decisions are generally strategic and long-term in nature rather than reactions to short-term events.”

One sector that could feel longer-term pressure is Dubai’s real estate market. Dubai’s real estate prices have been surging for five years straight, boosted by its golden visa program that gives foreigners a 10-year renewable visa for buying a property of $550,000 or more. Last year a 47,200-square-foot penthouse at the new Bugatti Residences set a price record for Dubai and the UAE when it sold for AED 550, or about $150 million.

Yet even before the Iran war, there were some signs that Dubai’s breakneck building spree, soaring prices and widespread speculation could start to cool. In September, UBS estimated the Dubai had the fifth-highest bubble risk of 21 major cities, ranking behind Zurich and Los Angeles. In the spring, Fitch Ratings predicted a correction in late 2025 and in 2026 with prices falling as much as 15%.

Fitch Ratings’ Anton Lopatin said the effect on real estate values will depend on the conflict’s scope and duration. For now, he said, expatriate departures could “put pressure” on Dubai’s housing market.