Flight Safety Information - June 8, 2026 No. 111 In This Issue : Incident: Swiss A333 over Black Sea on Jun 7th 2026, engine indication : Incident: Skywest E175 at Minneapolis on Jun 6th 2026, engine failure : Incident: Southwest B737 at Austin on Jun 4th 2026, engine problems : Incident: Kalitta B744 at Anchorage and New York on Jun 2nd 2026, dropped panel : Incident: Allegiant A319 at Las Vegas on Jun 3rd 2026, odour in cockpi : Incident: American A319 near Miami on Jun 1st 2026, hydraulic leak : Incident: KLM Cityhopper E190 at Amsterdam on Jun 4th 2026, door indication and pressurization issue : Pilot, copilot confirmed dead in private jet crash in Dominican Republic : Are NOTAMs China’s New Airspace Denial Tactic? : Global Aerospace's SM4 Aviation Safety Program Offers Essentials on Sleep Need vs. Sleep Capacity and The Science of Sleep Banking : Air-safety legislation sparks partisan brawl over taxing private jets : Air fare rises ‘inevitable’ as airlines face extra $100bn jet fuel bill this year : Graduate Research Request : Calendar of Events Incident: Swiss A333 over Black Sea on Jun 7th 2026, engine indication A Swiss Airbus A330-300, registration HB-JHG performing flight LX-2646 from Zurich (Switzerland) to Delhi (India) with 151 people on board, was enroute at FL350 over the Black Sea about 70nm east of Varna (Bulgaria) when the crew decided to turn around and return to Zurich due to a left hand engine (Trent 772) indication. The aircraft climbed to FL360 for the return and landed safely back in Zurich about 4.5 hours after departure. The rotation was cancelled. The airline reported the crew received indication of particles in the fuel/oil system for the left hand engine, in addition another problem was indicated for the engine. In coordination with maintenance and dispatch the aircraft was called back to Zurich for better maintenance possibilities. The passengers were rebooked onto other flights. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a3515f&opt=0 Incident: Skywest E175 at Minneapolis on Jun 6th 2026, engine failure A Skywest Embraer ERJ-175 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N244SY performing flight DL-4122 from Minneapolis,MN to Bentonville,AR (USA) with 52 people on board, was climbing out of Minneapolis' runway 17 when the crew declared Mayday reporting an engine #2 (CF34, right hand) failure. The aircraft entered a hold at 9000 feet for about 50 minutes and returned to Minneapolis for a safe landing on runway 13R about 65 minutes after departure, the aircraft taxied to the apron. The airline reported an indication of an engine issue. A replacement ERJ-175 registration N255SY reached Bentonville with a delay of about 4 hours. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a34218&opt=0 Incident: Southwest B737 at Austin on Jun 4th 2026, engine problems A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N7855A performing flight WN-375 from Austin,TX to Phoenix,AZ (USA), was climbing out of Austin's runway 18L when the crew stopped the climb at about 13,000 feet due to problems with their right hand engine (CFM56) and decided to return to Austin. The aircraft received some delay vectors and vectors around weather while the crew was working the checklists. The crew reported they did not have an engine fire indication but wanted emergency services to look them over. The aircraft landed safely on Austin's runway 18R about 40 minutes after departure and stopped on the runway for an inspection by emergency services for about 8 minutes before taxiing to the apron. The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT RETURNED TO AIRPORT DUE TO AN ENGINE ISSUE AND POST FLIGHT INSPECTION REVEALED METAL DEBRIS AND DAMAGE TO THE RIGHT ENGINE, AUSTIN, TX." A replacement Boeing 737-700 registration N920WN reached Phoenix with a delay of about 3.5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Austin about 26.5 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a20b94&opt=0 Incident: Kalitta B744 at Anchorage and New York on Jun 2nd 2026, dropped panel A Kalitta Boeing 747-400 freighter, registration N744CK performing flight K4-935 from Anchorage,AK to New York JFK,NY (USA) with 2 crew, departed Anchorage's runway 33, climbed initially to FL330 and continued to New York for a safe landing on runway 04R about 6:15 hours after departure. The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT DEPARTED AND THERE WERE REPORTS THAT A PANEL FELL OFF, CONTINUED TO JFK AND POST FLIGHT INSPECTION REVEALED A PANEL WAS MISSING FROM THE LEFT WING, ANCHORAGE, AK." The aircraft is still on the ground in New York about 55 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a20483&opt=0 Incident: Allegiant A319 at Las Vegas on Jun 3rd 2026, odour in cockpit An Allegiant Airbus A319-100, registration N328NV performing flight G4-9628 from Trois-Rivieres,QC (Canada) to Las Vegas,NV (USA), was on approach to Las Veegas' runway 26L when the crew donned their oxygen masks and requested priority advising ATC they had an odour on the flight deck that was worsening. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 26L about 4 minutes later. The aircraft remained on the ground in Las Vegas for about 26 hours before returning to service. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a1fefa&opt=0 Incident: American A319 near Miami on Jun 1st 2026, hydraulic leak An American Airlines Airbus A319-100, registration N816AW performing flight AA-2240 from Orlando,FL to Miami,FL (USA), was enroute at FL210 when the crew declared emergency due to a hydraulic leak at the left hand engine. The aircraft continued to Miami for a safe landing on runway 27 about 25 minutes later. The aircraft remained on the ground in Miami for about 37 hours before returning to service. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a1f1e3&opt=0 Incident: KLM Cityhopper E190 at Amsterdam on Jun 4th 2026, door indication and pressurization issue A KLM Cityhopper Embraer ERJ-190, registration PH-EZG performing flight KL-1789 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Hanover (Germany), was climbing out of Amsterdam's runway 24 when the crew stopped the climb at FL175 reporting an aft door unlocked message. The crew subsequently requested to descend to FL100 advising they had pressurization problems. The crew later advised it probably was just an indication, however, according to the checklists they had to divert to the nearest possible airport. The aircraft landed safely on Amsterdam's runway 22 about 30 minutes after departure. https://avherald.com/h?article=53a1ec78&opt=0 Pilot, copilot confirmed dead in private jet crash in Dominican Republic Aircraft was en route to Texas before crashing at La Romana International Airport The pilot and co-pilot of a private jet were killed Sunday when their aircraft crashed while attempting an emergency landing at La Romana International Airport in the Dominican Republic. The US-registered Gulfstream G200 jet was en route to Austin, Texas and was approximately 16 nautical miles southwest of La Romana when it declared an emergency due to severe mechanical problems. The crew returned to the airport and attempted to make an emergency landing but the plane crashed as it touched down and caught fire, exploding in a fireball. According to preliminary reports, only the two crew members were on board. The Dominican Institute of Civil Aviation (IDAC) and the Aviation Accident Investigation Commission (CIAA) said they are investigating the incident. "Aviation authorities activated the corresponding protocols and are conducting the necessary investigations to determine the causes of the incident. Both the IDAC and the CIAA will provide additional information as the investigation progresses," according to a statement shared by the IDAC on the US social media platform X. No further details about the crash have been released, and authorities have not yet issued an official statement regarding the cause of the accident. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/pilot-copilot-confirmed-dead-in-private-jet-crash-in-dominican-republic/3959725 ********** Date: Sunday 7 June 2026 Time: c. 20:10 UTC Type: Gulfstream G200 Owner/operator: Aibonito Aviation LLC Registration: N318JF MSN: 093 Year of manufacture: 2004 Fatalities: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 2 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Category: Accident Location: La Romana International Airport (LRM/MDLR), La Romana - Dominican Republic Phase: Landing Nature: Ferry/positioning Departure airport: La Romana International Airport (LRM/MDLR) Destination airport: Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, TX (AUS/KAUS) Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: A Gulfstream G200, N318JF, was destroyed when it crashed during an attempted emergency landing on runway 29 at La Romana International Airport (LRM/MDLR), Dominican Republic. Both pilots were killed. The flight crew reported an inflight emergency (appears to be a failure of one of the engines) and their intent to return back to the airport. ADS-B data indicate that the aircraft took off from runway 11 at LRM about 19:30 UTC, making a right hand turn until it flew a 300° track. At 19:35 it began two left-hand turns and appeared to be lining up for runway 11 for an emergency landing. AD-B data is missing for about four minutes and the aircraft was then tracked circling to the north-west of the airport. After completing four left-hand turns, the aircraft lined up for an emergency landing on runway 29. Weather data at the time of landing, 20:10 UTC, indicate am 8.7 kts tailwind component. Videos of the accident sequence appear to show the aircraft veering to the left after landing. The main undercarriage collapsed as the aircraft slid across the grass next to the runway. The no.1 engine can be seen separating from the fuselage. The aircraft the burst into flames when striking a runway sign. https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/571902 Are NOTAMs China’s New Airspace Denial Tactic? On March 27, 2026, a civil aviation authority in Shanghai issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) restricting access to 28,000 square miles of international airspace off the coast of China. The extraordinary duration of the airspace restrictions—40 days—sowed confusion. Unlike previous extended airspace restrictions, the NOTAM did not accompany any major People’s Republic of China (PRC) military exercises, raising questions regarding Beijing’s motives. Nonetheless, the airspace restriction followed a recent pattern of PRC civil aviation authorities employing NOTAMs to close off areas primarily used by foreign military aircraft, rather than commercial planes. The manner in which the airspace restrictions are clearly targeted at foreign military activity suggests that the abuse of NOTAMs is becoming a tool in Beijing’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy. NOTAMs have emerged only recently as a point of contention in the PRC’s foreign policy. Indeed, NOTAMs are usually only relevant to commercial aviation. Issued by states’ air traffic control authorities, they serve to warn commercial pilots of potential aviation hazards, such as inclement weather or upcoming military exercises. International airspace—areas beyond 12 nautical miles of coastlines—is divided across the world into flight information regions (FIRs). Civil aviation authorities from various countries take responsibility for conducting air traffic control over FIRs. However, air traffic control over an FIR is not synonymous with sovereignty. For this reason, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules clarify that state aircraft—e.g. military planes—do not need to heed orders from air traffic control in international airspace. This makes the PRC’s restrictions all the more puzzling. The exclusion zones outlined in the March 27 NOTAM are neatly arranged so as to avoid intersection with any major civil aviation air route in East Asia. Hence the exclusion zones appear as a patchwork of odd shapes. In other words, China’s civil aviation authorities issued restrictions to airspace that commercial aircraft would not access anyway. Indeed, some tourist agencies took the measure of specifically clarifying that the 40-day NOTAM was relevant to military aviation alone and would not affect commercial travel. Given that the restrictions apply to zones that are frequented by PRC and foreign military aircraft—such as American surveillance planes—it is more likely that the measure is aimed at impeding adversary entry to airspace near China’s coast. The PRC has been particularly opposed to surveillance aircraft nearing its Northern Sea Fleet headquarters in Qingdao, close to the restricted zones. While foreign military aircraft do not need to cooperate with China’s civil aviation authorities, the NOTAMs may compel commanders to conclude that the airspace may not be safe for access, or pressure incoming pilots to self-identify with PRC aviation authorities for safety. Indeed, the NOTAMs, organized during a busy season of U.S. and allied exercises in East Asia, may be intended to deliver the indirect message that “this international airspace is reserved for PRC military use only.” This is not the first time China has announced a “patchwork” style of airspace restrictions that skirted civil aviation routes. In 2024, Chinese air traffic control issued several NOTAMs restricting oddly shaped stretches of airspace to the north and south of Taiwan for three days. The NOTAMs coincided with large-scale People’s Liberation Army (PLA) exercises around Taiwan. Yet the restricted areas extended to airspace far beyond the Taiwan Strait—and where no PRC drills took place. Indeed, just a few weeks before those exercises, PRC air traffic control had issued additional unexplained NOTAMs restricting enormous stretches of airspace much closer to the Yellow Sea. The measures escaped major attention because the wider context of the activity was not clear. Given that the PRC has now established a pattern of employing large-scale, unexplained restrictions to international airspace near its shores, it is now reasonable to assume that Beijing is seeking to convert air traffic control authority into a kind of provisional “right of denial” to any foreign aircraft, commercial or military. The PRC has a track record of bending the norms around international airspace to suit its strategic objectives. In 2020, Hong Kong air traffic control blocked a Taiwanese charter plane from resupplying the Taiwan-administered Dongsha Island in the South China Sea. Seven years earlier, in November 2013, Beijing announced a drastic expansion of its air defense identification zone (ADIZ)—the area in which the PRC expects incoming aircraft to identify themselves to aviation authorities or face interception. The PRC’s ADIZ expansion constituted a swathe of airspace in the heart of the East China Sea—encompassing several of the zones restricted by PRC’s NOTAMs in 2024 and 2026. In response to the 2013 ADIZ expansion, the United States, Japan, and South Korea vowed that their military aircraft would not respect the requirement to report entry to Chinese authorities. The recent NOTAM-based restrictions may be a backdoor method of compelling foreign aircraft to announce their entrance into international airspace near China, akin to an ADIZ. The 2026 airspace restriction elapsed on May 6. The only notable PRC military activity that occurred over that time was the deployment of a naval group through Japan’s Ryukyu Islands in response to Tokyo dispatching a warship through the Taiwan Strait. Major PRC air activity, which could have justified some part of the 40-day airspace restriction, was not reported. Meanwhile, the United States, the Philippines, Japan, and other allies conducted the annual Balikatan combined exercises in the South China Sea. Though some anticipated that the PLA might use some of the airspace reserved in the 40-day NOTAM for its own, reciprocal exercises, it did not. How did the United States and partners react to this round of international airspace restrictions by China? Though Washington did not issue public statements regarding the airspace closures, this author was able to observe through open source flight tracking software that U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft nonetheless flew several missions in and around the restricted zones. Indeed, even a New Zealand Defense Force Poseidon aircraft was observed one degree in longitude from the restricted zones (approximately 60 miles) before switching off its transponder and disappearing from observation. Open source tracking thus suggests that the United States, and even partner militaries, have not been deterred from accessing international airspace that the PRC has sought to restrict. However, questions remain regarding whether the PRC is drawing a strategic advantage from its abuse of air traffic control over its FIR. For example, did U.S. and allied aircraft notify PRC aviation authorities when entering the zones restricted by NOTAMs—a measure they would not have taken before the restrictions? An important hypothetical must also be asked: Would the United States and allies refrain from military exercises in areas that have been reserved in advance by the PRC’s aviation authorities? While the location of restricted areas is closer to the coast of China than allied exercises might usually delve, it is conceivable that Beijing is seeking to pre-empt access and establish a norm of “first-come-first served” for access to international airspace during busy seasons of military activity. It is laudable that the U.S. military aircraft continued regular patrol missions in East Asia, in spite of PRC aviation restrictions. In 2024, during the PRC’s December exercises accompanying NOTAMs, this author did not observe U.S. aircraft entering restricted airspace with transponders switched on. In addition to the U.S. military’s telegraphed attempts to flout the restrictions, the Pentagon should publicly announce that it will not heed NOTAMs alone when deciding where to plan exercises or freedom of navigation missions. Clear signaling, especially at this earlier stage of status quo revision, will prevent NOTAM abuse from becoming a proven method in the PRC’s grey zone toolbox. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/06/08/are_notams_chinas_new_airspace_denial_tactic_1187261.html Global Aerospace's SM4 Aviation Safety Program Offers Essentials on Sleep Need vs. Sleep Capacity and The Science of Sleep Banking Does Banking Sleep Work? Global Aerospace’s SM4 Aviation Safety Program Provides Perspective Global Aerospace SM4 Aviation Safety Program Recall the last time you were on a flight or duty that cut into your natural daily sleep pattern. Chances are you were annoyed at the sleep deprivation but leaned in to combat the fatigue stress with a combination of operational risk controls, personal fatigue countermeasures and grit. With experience, you will prepare for this type of operation by making sure to get a good night’s sleep ahead of time. But what about deliberately getting more sleep? Can sleep be “banked” in advance of encountering a sleep deficit? Global Aerospace’s SM4 Aviation Safety Program has answers to these questions and more. Let’s start with a sports analogy. Many ultra-distance endurance athletes will consume excess carbohydrates the day before a race. The idea is to fill up glycogen stores to delay muscle fatigue and maintain stronger output deeper into the event. Even if you don’t run ultramarathons, you will be familiar with stocking up on essentials before an impending snowstorm. Scientists have been debating whether sleep and fatigue follow a similar dynamic since the concept of “sleep banking” was first proposed by Rupp et al. nearly 20 years ago. The reality of sleep debt—a reflection of chronic sleep deprivation in modern society—was already well understood by then, and it seemed natural to extend the financial metaphor further. Some sleep experts found that extending nighttime sleep prior to a period of sleep restriction produced measurably reduced deficits in alertness and performance during a subsequent period of restricted sleep. Others, however, questioned whether the investment in more sleep was simply reversing a preexisting sleep debt. A recent paper in the journal Sleep by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research aims to settle the debate. Sleep Need vs. Sleep Capacity How much do you sleep during the fifth night of a week-long vacation? Allowing for any lingering sleep debts to be paid off during the first few nights, how long you sleep each night in the second half of a vacation is probably the best indication of your daily sleep need. Due to genetic variations, humans have a daily sleep need that ranges from seven to nine hours for adults. While the need for sleep is obvious, the capacity to sleep is affected by many factors including physical and mental well-being, behavioral choices and even practical limitations. Yet when those factors are controlled, the researchers found that the human brain will accumulate a surplus of “sleep-dependent restorative resources” when given the chance. In other words, we do have the capacity to invest in excess sleep. This idea is supported by a finding in a 2015 study of sleep patterns in people who live far enough from the equator to experience a change of seasons: They sleep 50 minutes longer each night in winter, on average, than during the summer. https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/healthcare/articles/global-aerospaces-sm4-aviation-safety-231200033.html Air-safety legislation sparks partisan brawl over taxing private jets The House-passed bill would stop states from tapping flight data to help enforce taxes on private aircraft. A little-noticed provision tucked into an air-safety bill pending in Congress would make it easier for wealthy people to avoid paying state and local taxes on their private jets. The legislation would bar tax officials nationwide from using the identifying information that aircraft are required to broadcast while flying as part of their tax-collection efforts. That’s prompted an outcry from some state officials, who say it’s often difficult to track privately-owned planes and jets — and that the data is critical to being able to enforce the property taxes and other levies owed on them. “Private aircraft owners go to great lengths to hide their aircraft from us,” said Jeff Prang, the assessor for Los Angeles County, where private jets are common. “This data helps us to identify where those aircraft are located.” At the center of the fight is an air-safety bill lawmakers are now attempting to finalize nearly a year-and-a-half after the January 2025 collision over the Potomac River between a passenger jet and Army helicopter that killed 67 people. And it comes as taxing the rich is a major topic of debate in Washington, where private jets are a frequently invoked symbol of wealth and income disparity. The proposal has sparked a partisan brawl, with Democrats lambasting the provision and private plane owners seeking a win. “These are extremely wealthy individuals who are not paying their taxes,” said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif), who represents part of Los Angeles and sits on the Transportation and Infrastructure committee. “This is a tool that allows my county to collect what’s owed to them. The bill should not be providing people ways to get around the law.” But many Republicans and aircraft owners say the data is supposed to be used to improve safety — not government revenue. This “is a critical safety technology mandated by the FAA” which some states are now “abusing to levy unfair, sometimes duplicative fees,” said Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), a member of the chamber’s Commerce committee, in a statement. Another 1,000 planes Many states impose a range of charges on private jets, including property, sales and use taxes, that can trigger hefty bills for aircraft owners. But they’ve long been difficult to enforce, and compliance is often poor, because people try to avoid the charges by registering and storing aircraft in other states like Montana and Delaware that don’t charge the fees. Tax collectors got an unexpected boost though when, in 2020, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring aircraft to adopt a satellite-based technology called Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out, or ADS-B Out, that continuously broadcasts their altitude, speed and identification number, among other things. For air-traffic controllers, the technology allows for more precise tracking of aircraft than radar. But it also made it much easier for tax collectors to figure out which planes are in their vicinity and who owns them. Tax collectors can compare the identification numbers to a national registry of aircraft to attach names and addresses to planes. There are also companies that collect, sort and package the data and sell it to tax agencies. In California, private jets are subject to sales tax as well as a 1 percent annual property tax on their value. Jet owners are supposed to file annual statements with the state, though many do not. Since Jan. 1, Prang, the assessor, said the data has helped his office find an additional 1,000 planes in Los Angeles County, with a total assessed value of $3.5 billion. “At one percent [property tax], that’s $35 million in local property taxes that aircraft owners had been avoiding,” he said. Absent the technology, he said, his office would have to rely on more analog methods of enforcement like showing up at airfields and taking an inventory of planes and jets, which can be hit-and-miss. “Obviously, we’re not catching aircraft that are not on the ground at that time,” said Prang. “Some clever aircraft owners, if they know when we’re coming, they might fly their planes out of state.” Pilot privacy The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a trade group known as AOPA, has been pressing lawmakers to ban anyone from using the tax to collect revenue. The group said pilots bought the expensive technology for their aircraft in order to comply with safety regulations, not to help tax collectors. “ADS-B is a safety tool to prevent mid-air collisions, and that’s what it should be used for,” said Jim Coon, AOPA’s senior vice president for government affairs and advocacy. “This is a misuse of a safety tool.” “They can find other tools to collect fees.” Coon also called the practice an invasion of pilots’ privacy. The House bill, H.R. 7613, approved in April, says the data “may not be used by any person, government agency, or other entity to identify aircraft for the purpose of obtaining revenue from the owner or operator of such aircraft” without permission. In an accompanying report on the measure, Republicans said that would “establish a clear, nationwide standard, preempting any future state, local, or tribal law, ensuing that ADS-B is solely used for its intended safety purpose.” A competing proposal in the Senate, S. 2503, doesn’t include the provision, and lawmakers are now trying to hash out a compromise plan. The Trump Administration is opposed to tax collectors using the data. “We frown on the concept of using ADS-B information for revenue collection at airports and if we need to step up that, in terms of how aggressively we dissuade them, we will,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told lawmakers at a May 19 hearing. Officials in more than a dozen states use ADS-B data to aid in tax collections, industry experts say. In March, Alabama’s Department of Revenue predicted the proposed ban would cost the state $18 million annually. “Being able to use technology in a manner to efficiently collect fees and taxes that nobody disputes are owed is just common sense, and something we should be doing,” said Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.). https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/08/air-safety-taxing-private-jets-00950254 Air fare rises ‘inevitable’ as airlines face extra $100bn jet fuel bill this year Iata summit in Brazil hears top executives say although jet fuel shortages are unlikely, industry-wide profits will halve Airlines will have to spend an extra $100bn on jet fuel this year, with fares “inevitably” rising to cover the bill after the war with Iran choked off oil supplies. With jet fuel prices expected to be 70% higher across 2026, airlines body Iata said that collective industry profits worldwide would halve to $23bn. Some carriers would struggle to survive the fuel price shock caused by the closure of the strait of Hormuz in March, it said. “High oil prices will inevitably mean higher ticket prices,” said Willie Walsh, Iata’s director general. “There’s just no way to avoid that.” Walsh said industry polling showed passengers were now braced for higher fares and prepared to spend more, but added: “The big unknown is how long travellers and shippers can tolerate the higher costs of connectivity.” Speaking at Iata’s summit in Rio de Janeiro, Walsh said it was a “challenging and unpredictable time”, with “wafer-thin margins”. “It’s going to be very challenging and for a lot of airlines the increase in the fuel bill is potentially existential.” But Walsh said that concerns about possible fuel shortages were now over, despite the soaring costs, and compared with Covid, it was not a crisis. “You’re looking at an industry that is still profitable and still forecasting growth,” said Walsh. “Traffic is up 2%. If you factor out the impact on the Middle East for the rest of the world it remains a pretty positive environment.” Long-haul and business passengers may face the bulk of the fare increases, according to the chief executive of British Airways. Speaking on the fringes of the conference, Sean Doyle said there would be “no getting away from it – if fuel goes up, fares have to go up”. However, Doyle suggested that more price-sensitive short-haul holiday flights would be the last to increase: “A brand like BA, which has got a lot of long haul, a lot of corporate, a lot of premium; we’d expect maybe to have more pass-through of prices than maybe a carrier who’s solely competing for leisure short haul.” According to research from Iata, around half of passengers were prepared to spend substantially more on fares should they track the price of oil, which Walsh said “bodes well” for a strong northern summer season for the industry. More British and European travellers will be flying within the continent than usual, industry data showed, with fewer venturing farther afield given the continued uncertainty around the Gulf hubs. But Iata warned that the EU’s entry-exit system (EES) could still create difficulties for those travellers, this summer and beyond. The airlines body called on Europe to rewrite legislation to ensure that flexibility to pause the border controls could continue, beyond the current absolute deadline of 7 September for the full and final introduction of biometric checks on all applicable travellers. Rafael Schvartsman, Iata’s vice-president Europe, said: “I think Europe needs to be much more honest [about] where we are.” Under the new system, most non-EU citizens will be fingerprinted and photographed by border staff, with details uploaded to a central database. Schvartsman said: “Normally, we would process a passenger in 20 to 25 seconds, and you’re already stipulating that it will take 90 seconds, and on top of that you have unreliability of the systems, the probability that people will be waiting in lines for a long time is very, very high.” Travellers to the EU face potential long waits at passport control under the new system, he added: “For most of the Mediterranean, the British are the No 1 incoming tourist – that is a major concern.” Greece has already unilaterally announced it will not carry out EES checks on UK nationals. But Schvartsman said it was an issue for many airports and could not be resolved by exempting one nationality: “We also have high demand for American carriers already putting extra flights to European destinations during the summer. You will have an influx of US citizens too.” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jun/07/air-fare-rises-inevitable-as-airlines-face-extra-100bn-jet-fuel-bill-this-year Graduate Research Request Dear Pilots, My name is Giada Palusci, and I am a Master’s student in Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy. As part of my thesis, I am conducting research on Fatigue Risk Management, with a particular focus on the relationship between sleep, jet lag, and work rosters among commercial pilots. Aviation safety depends heavily on the human element, and direct insights from flight crews are essential to better understand current operational challenges. If you are a commercial pilot, I would be extremely grateful if you could spare a few minutes to complete this short, anonymous, and confidential survey. Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmbhmnrhr9l.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_esP9sU63Y7tM9LM Upon completion of the study, I will be happy to share the final results with Dr. Lewis and the broader aviation community. Thank you very much for your time and for your continued commitment to advancing aviation safety. Kind regards, Giada Palusci CALENDAR OF EVENTS .2026 FAA-EASA International Aviation Safety Conference — June 16-18, 2026, in Chantilly, Virginia, with the theme “Safety Together: Innovation, Integration and Trust.” https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/events/2026-faa-easa-international-aviation-safety-conference . Aircraft Fire Hazards, Protection, and Investigation Course 7 to 9 July 2026; Woburn MA 01801 USA : APSCON/APSCON Unmanned 2026 – Ft. Lauderdale, FL - July 13-17, 2026 . ICAO/EASA Third Global RSOO/RAIO Forum for Aviation Safety — September 29–30, 2026, in Georgetown, Guyana., https://www.icao.int/events : Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference - 22-23 September 2026 . IATA World Maintenance & Engineering Symposium (23-25 June, Madrid, Spain) . ISASI - BOSTON 2026 - September 28, 2026 – October 2, 2026 . Global Aviation Conference Frankfurt- 29-30SEP2026 - Frankfurt, Germany . 2026 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) Oct. 20-22, 2026 | Las Vegas, NV . 2027 ACSF Safety Symposium - April 6-8, 2027 - ERAU Daytona Beach, FL Curt Lewis