KLM cancels 160 flights due to fuel shortage | Hacker News Reader

KLM cancels 160 flights due to fuel shortage

theguardian.com

56 pointsslow_typist16 comments

News outlets around the world continue to misreport this particular phenomena. Demand for air travel is highly elastic. As airlines raise prices to cover the increased cost of fuel, they are cutting capacity to ensure their load factors remain in the profitable range.

This post links to the incorrect article. From the correct one [0]:

> The Dutch airline said: "This concerns a limited number of flights within Europe that, due to rising kerosene costs, are currently no longer financially viable to operate. There is no kerosene shortage."

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/16/europe-supp...

Direct source: https://www.reuters.com/business/klm-cancels-160-flights-com...

This really should be bigger news.

160 flights isn’t really that many, I suspect they are all on commercially marginal routes to begin with.

In my region, quite a few airlines have cut routes citing the fuel crisis. Including Qantas, Virgin Australia, and Air New Zealand. But again, we aren’t seeing widespread cancellations yet.

And they're letting go of employees citing AI. And increasing management perks citing something-or-other, perhaps cosmic rays. The sun rises, the sun sets, the Sun crashes, it is the way of things.

Remember the days when airlines used to hedge their exposure to fuel prices...???

It looks like quite a few international airlines (most?) hedge their exposure, and some have even been increasing lately:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-airlines-have-he...

You can't really hedge a true shortage. You'll get some money, but you can't pump money into a fuel tank.

Euro airlines hedge quite a bit actually - Ryanair is one of the most hedged airlines around. US airlines do it a lot less these days; Delta has their own refinery instead.

Hedging won't make more jet fuel appear though

Given that we have the facts about what it is doing to them, can we agree that if Europe doesn't like the existing trajectory of the geopolitical system their only options are to either change it by themselves or compel one or more allies to change it?

There's also the third option that's usually taken: condemnation of the trajectory.

But if they do that then Donald Trump will call them a weak loser... got any other options for them?

maybe UN resolution?

It is due to the high cost, not shortage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com