Dubai International Airport was the world’s busiest for international travel in 2024, officials announced on Thursday.

The hub saw a record 92.3 million passengers pass through its terminals last year.

The result cements Dubai’s bounce back from the coronavirus pandemic, surpassing the previous record set in 2018 for the first time.

It coincides with a real-estate boom and the city’s highest-ever tourism numbers, which have made Dubai a trending destination as well as a popular layover stop.

However, the city is now grappling with increasing traffic and housing costs, pressuring both its Emirati citizens and the foreign residents who power its economy.

Dubai Aiport was the world’s busiest in 2024

Today, Dubai International Airport feels like it is bursting at the seams with aircraft movements and crowds passing through its cavernous terminals.

Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, announced the record number of passengers on the social media platform X.

The state-owned airport is home to the long-haul carrier Emirates, which powers the network of state-owned and state-linked businesses known as ‘Dubai Inc’.

“Dubai is the airport of the world […] and a new world in the aviation sector,” Sheikh Mohammed wrote.

In 2023, the airport, known as DXB, had 86.9 million passengers. Its 2019 traffic was 86.3 million passengers. It had 89.1 million passengers in 2018 – its previous busiest-ever year before the pandemic – while 66 million passengers passed through in 2022.

Dubai plans move to city’s second airport

In 10 years, authorities plan to move operations to the city-state’s second airport after a nearly $35 billion (€33.5 billion) upgrade.

Al Maktoum International Airport is roughly 45 kilometres away from DXB.

The airport, which opened in 2010 with one terminal and is known as DWC, served as a parking lot for Emirates’ double-decker Airbus A380s and other aircraft during the pandemic.

But since then, it has slowly returned to life with cargo and private flights. It also hosts the biennial Dubai Air Show and has a vast, empty desert in which to expand.

DXB and DWC serve 106 airlines flying to 272 cities in 107 countries across the world.

Dubai grapples with tourism boom

While tourism adverts continue to entice travellers to the city, the constant increase in arrivals is putting a strain on the local population and infrastructure.

Traffic on Dubai’s roads is becoming a nightmare for commuters. The price of housing continues to spike, even with new real estate projects being announced almost daily.

“Dubai is on steroids but affordability risks are increasing,” Hasnain Malik warned in a report for the global data firm Tellimer, where he’s a managing director.

European low-cost behemoth and one of the biggest budget airlines in the world, Ryanair has pulled thousands of seats from its schedules for 2025 across several Spanish airports.

In all, seven airports will have their Ryanair services reduced, some by as little as five per cent. Others will see the exit of the budget airline entirely.

Overall, Ryanair is removing a total of 800,000 seats from the Spanish market, representing 18 per cent of its overall operations in the country. Twelve routes will be lost altogether.

The airline says this is because of the fees imposed by Spanish airport operator Aena, which it deems ‘excessive.’ However, Aena has hit back at the airline, accusing it of ‘blackmail’ and suggesting that Ryanair is using its weight to try and get airport access for free.

“Unfortunately, this is Ryanair’s modus operandi,” says Maurici Lucena, President of Aena. “In many European countries, we have seen it for years: threats, half-truths, lies…; but in the case of Spain, I honestly believe that today they have crossed the Rubicon of respect, good faith and the most basic business and institutional courtesy.”

On Wednesday, the spat escalated after Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary brought up another contentious incident.

In November 2024, the Spanish government fined five airlines for ‘abusive practices’ including charging passengers for carry-on luggage. Ryanair was hit with the biggest penalty of €107.8 million.

During a news conference in Brussels, O’Leary lambasted Spanish consumer rights minister Pablo Bustinduy, calling him “a crazy communist minister” who penalised airlines that “have no choice but to restrict carry-on bags”.

Bustinduy hit back saying that “no pressure, no blackmail and no insult will stop me” in his duty to defend the country’s consumers above multinationals and magnates, “however powerful they may be”, news site The Local reports.

Which airports are losing Ryanair service?

It is mainly regional airports in Spain that are losing either part or all of their Ryanair services.

Most affected are Jerez and Valladolid, which the budget airline will pull out of entirely.

According to Aena, Valladolid will be left with only one commercial operator once Ryanair exits – Binter Canarias, with its twice-weekly service to Gran Canaria.

Jerez will fare better, with existing services from Binter, Air Nostrum and Vueling connecting it to Madrid, Barcelona, Mallorca, Tenerife and Gran Canaria.

Of the other airports, Vigo will lose the most capacity, with Ryanair cutting 61 per cent of its flights.

At Santiago, Ryanair will remove one aircraft from its base there, leading to a 28 per cent reduction in capacity. Zaragoza, Asturias and Santander will also lose a few Ryanair flights.

“Aena’s excessive airport charges and lack of workable growth incentives continue to undermine Spain’s regional airports,” says Eddie Wilson, CEO of Ryanair. “As a result, Ryanair will cease its entire Jerez and Valladolid operations, remove 1 based aircraft from Santiago ($100m investment) and reduce traffic in Vigo, Santiago, Zaragoza, Asturias, and Santander (loss of 800,000 seats) in Summer 2025.”

What are the fees Ryanair is unhappy with?

Aena says that the average charge being paid by airlines for airport services as of 1 March will remain frozen at €10.35 per passenger, the same as it was in 2024.

“Aena’s refusal to incentivise airlines to use underutilised capacity at its regional airports has forced Ryanair to reallocate aircraft and capacity to more competitive European markets,” Wilson adds.

However, Aena disputes the assertion that they are not incentivising airlines to make use of regional airports. At the end of October 2024, the airport management company approved an initiative to stimulate growth by subsidising its 17 regional airports.

Specifically, for those airports with fewer than three million passengers and which had not returned to their pre-pandemic passenger levels, Aena has offered a 100 per cent discount for additional passengers over and above the 2023 levels.

Aena says that, in reality, this incentive scheme would reduce Ryanair’s per-passenger fee to just €2.

“Aena cordially urges Ryanair to calm down and abandon its long-standing and regrettably well-known mendacious, aggressive and threatening business and communication strategy,” the airport operator says, “which it is very difficult not to interpret as an attempt to blackmail Aena, the region and, ultimately, the Spanish public.”

Are the fees at Spanish airports hampering growth?

Aena says its fees are amongst the lowest in Europe, although Ryanair says this isn’t true.

Inflationary pressures have seen everything become more expensive, including in aviation. From fuel and staff to supplies and services, it all costs more than it used to and airlines have been quick to pass on to passengers.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) says that airfares increased 16 per cent in 2024 compared with 2019. However, Airports Council International (ACI) has published research that suggests they’re more like 38 per cent higher.

On the other hand, airports have not been able to raise their charges to the same magnitude. ACI says that airport charges in Europe rose just 13.6 per cent in 2024, far below the cost increases airports are experiencing.

“Many airports have yet to fully reflect inflationary pressures in their user charges,” says Olivier Jankovec, director general of ACI Europe. “Regulators are often oblivious of these pressures and of how debt accumulated through COVID is hurting their investment capabilities.”

Part of Ryanair’s argument is that Aena was allowed to raise fees by 4.09 per cent in 2024, despite the Spanish government ruling in 2021 that airport fees would be frozen for five years.

In 2023, the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) approved the rise, which shakes out to a total of €0.40 more per passenger. Aena again proposed an increase for 2025, which would have added €0.05 to the cost for airlines, but it was refused by CNMC.

Despite Ryanair’s assertions that fees are at the heart of its schedule changes, the argument weakens when its entire Spanish operation is considered.

“​​I am surprised that they are questioning the profitability of these routes,” says Lucena. He goes on to explain that Ryanair’s flights from the regional airports have been full – fuller even than those at major city airports.

Throughout 2024, Ryanair increased its activity at Spanish airports by 8.7 per cent. For 2025, despite the cuts the airline has planned, its Spanish activities will increase again, with around 5 per cent more flights overall.

Ryanair is continuing to grow at the largest and most touristic Spanish airports. These airports do not attract the incentive discount, and airlines are charged the full €10.35 per passenger.

“In reality, what Ryanair has announced is that it will withdraw a very small percentage, in relative terms, of its total operations,” says Lucena. “The 800,000 seats they announced account for exactly 1.21 per cent of all passenger traffic they carried in 2024.”

He adds that Ryanair is masking business-led route cuts to exert pressure on Aena and the government.

Lucena even goes so far as to say that, under Spanish law, Ryanair’s moves could even be considered illegal. “In short, it’s all rather unpleasant and regrettable,” he concludes.

In a statement, Aena reiterated its position, saying, “Despite its grandiloquent rhetoric, Ryanair’s constant public pressure boils down to a simple goal: to use a significant portion of Spanish airports for free, which would jeopardise the long-term financial sustainability of Spain’s airport system.”

Could all our future planes travel faster than the speed of sound? It’s been more than 20 years since the last supersonic passenger flight took off, but a US company wants to bring it back.

Boom Supersonic, based in Colorado, is developing the world’s first supersonic passenger aircraft since the demise of Concorde. While the full-size aircraft is still a few years away, the company has reached a milestone in the project when it successfully broke the sound barrier with its small-scale test aircraft on Tuesday.

The XB-1, affectionately known as the ‘Baby Boom’, is a one-third-scale demonstrator used to test the technology that Boom will employ in its full-scale aircraft. Yesterday, the XB-1 achieved Mach 1.05 within about 11 minutes of taking off.

“XB-1’s supersonic flight demonstrates that the technology for passenger supersonic flight has arrived,” Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl said in a statement. “A small band of talented and dedicated engineers has accomplished what previously took governments and billions of dollars”.

The aircraft, which flew for the first time in March, is made almost completely from lightweight carbon fibre. It uses an augmented reality vision system to help with landing, since its long nose and high-angle approach can make it difficult for pilots to see.

“The future of aviation is here and now,” told Amy Marino Spowart, president and CEO of the National Aeronautic Association. “Not only is there hope for faster and better commercial flight, but Boom proves that it can be done sustainably”.

Boom’s Overture airliner will be the first supersonic passenger aircraft in more than two decades. But can it succeed where past efforts to get us travelling faster have failed?

A short history of supersonic passenger planes

Back in the 1950s, everyone was convinced that supersonic was the next big thing in air travel. Having just about mastered the jet engine, the aviation industry was inspired by Chuck Yeager, who was the first to break the sound barrier in 1947. Major manufacturers set about designing a commerical passenger aircraft that could do the same thing.

Boeing, certain that the mighty 747 would be the last subsonic aircraft it produced, began working on the 2707 SST (supersonic transport). Lockheed proposed the L-2000, a supersonic aircraft that could carry 250 passengers. However, neither aircraft went into production.

Just two supersonic passenger planes have ever entered service – the Russian Tupolev Tu-144 and the venerable Anglo-French Concorde. In total, 20 Concordes were built, although only 14 flew in passenger service. Russia built 16 Tu-144s.

The Tu-144 – affectionately known in the industry as the ‘Concordski’ – entered service in 1975 but was retired from passenger service just three years later. Concorde lasted longer, flying from 1976 until 2003.

So, why did aviation give up on supersonic passenger transport so soon?

What was the problem with Concorde?

The appetite for a supersonic passenger plane was strong. By the time Concorde took its first test flight, orders had been received for more than 100 aircraft from dozens of major airlines of the day. Pan Am, American Airlines, BOAC, and Lufthansa were counted among the many carriers keen to fly faster routes.

But even before the aircraft entered service with British Airways and Air France, many of these orders had been cancelled. Three main problems existed with the plane – noise, smoke, and money.

The 1973 stock market crash and an oil crisis in the same year made airlines rather cautious about aircraft that consumed a lot of fuel. Reports suggested that Concorde achieved a per-passenger fuel efficiency of 15.8 mpg (17.8 L/100 km), making it a rather thirsty option.

In comparison, the Boeing 747 would achieve a per-passenger mpg rate of 46.4 (6.1 L/100 km), and the popular Douglas DC-10 managed as high as 53.6 mpg (5.3 L/100 km).

Coupled with the worries about fuel consumption, the noise of Concorde’s sonic boom caused issues that made its planned routes with potential buyers unviable. Complaints of broken windows and cracked plaster from households under the flight path, and even farmers reporting panic amongst livestock, meant Concorde was banned from going supersonic over land.

As a result, the plane was forced to fly subsonic until it got over the open ocean. This meant Concorde’s high-speed routes were mainly focused between Europe and the USA, making the plane less attractive to potential buyers who wanted to operate routes over land.

In the end, only Air France and British Airways ever flew the Concorde. Putting the aircraft into passenger operation presented yet another challenge, however, as the costs to power such a fuel-hungry jet with a modest passenger load of around 100 people made the business case very weak.

In order to make Concorde profitable, both airlines had to charge eye-watering prices for tickets. According to the National Air and Space Museum, British Airways would charge around $12,000 (€11,550) for a round trip between London and New York. Adjusted for inflation, that shakes out to around $66,000 (€63,500) in today’s money.

The companies made a go out of it – just about. Despite the high costs, both airlines managed to sell tickets, with passengers seeing their trip as a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity. But the cabin was noisy, smelly, and cramped – hardly a luxury experience for the money.

The death blow came when an Air France Concorde was involved in a fatal crash in 2000. Debris on the runway was blamed for rupturing a tyre, which then punctured one of the fuel tanks. This caused the plane to crash into a nearby hotel, claiming the lives of 113 people.

While both BA and Air France cited high maintenance costs for the retirement of their Concorde fleets in 2003, there were many factors at play. In truth, the market had moved on, and a trend for low-cost flying and more efficient aircraft had made Concorde redundant.

Will Boom Supersonic succeed where Concorde failed?

If you believe the hype, Boom claims to have already dealt with many of the issues that contributed to Concorde’s demise. Noise, cost, and efficiency are high priorities for the company to tackle.

Part of Concorde’s noise profile was a direct result of the engines using afterburners to achieve supersonic flight. Overture will not use afterburners, which should significantly reduce fuel consumption and the associated noise.

For passengers, the cabin is a world away from the cramped, noisy environment on Concorde. Advanced soundproofing measures mean it shouldn’t seem any louder than a conventional jet aircraft, and the company has already floated some designs for its interiors that look suitably luxurious and comfortable.

The company has developed its own engine solution that it says will reduce fuel consumption. These engines are designed to run on 100 per cent sustainable aviation fuel which, although not available at scale yet, would further reduce its environmental impact.

Overture hasn’t quite managed to eliminate the sonic boom effect, but thanks to more optimised aerodynamics, the impact will be reduced significantly. The company promises that Overture will be able to fly over land at Mach 0.94, about 20 per cent faster than subsonic aircraft, without breaking the sound barrier.

For now, the supersonic aircraft would be restricted to breaking the sound barrier over water. Boom says there are more than 600 transoceanic routes on which Overture could provide a supersonic solution without changing current regulations relating to sonic booms.

“Overture was created to achieve optimal performance while meeting our stringent safety and sustainability requirements,” says Boom Supersonic. “We are leveraging more than fifty years of advancements in aerodynamics, materials, and propulsion to build economically and environmentally viable supersonic aeroplanes”.

But what of the market demand? By the end of Concorde’s lifespan, British Airways said it was selling only around half of its available tickets. Air France, still suffering from the tragic crash in 2000, was selling less, only around 35 per cent.

Concorde’s ticket prices were up there in the ultra-luxury category. In contrast, Boom is targeting business travellers, and pricing seats accordingly. Early estimates suggest a round trip Europe to USA ticket for around $5,000 (€4,800), in the ballpark of what passengers pay for business class seats on regular jets today.

“Today, there’s both the market demand and the technology to enable mainstream supersonic travel,” the company says. “Business and leisure travel has continued to grow, and travellers are willing to pay for speed.”

Boom is targeting 2029 for the entry into service of its Overture airliner. It has already had orders for 130 aircraft from multiple global airlines, including American Airlines, United, and Japan Airlines. If it can steer clear of the pitfalls that ended Concorde’s career, supersonic travel may well be back on the cards.