United Airlines has taken a $250 million hit to its fourth-quarter earnings amid the shutdown of the US government that began on 1 October and ended 12 November. The US major declares that the shutdown "provided an opportunity to do the right thing by our customers and further build their trust". "United offered all customers a full refund – even if their flights weren't cancelled – and aggressively promoted that policy in customer communications," the Chicago-based carrier says. It adds that its "customer-first policies" and the shutdown's impact on bookings and costs "led to an approximately $250 million impact to pre-tax earnings in the quarter". United reported a fourth-quarter operating profit of $1.39 billion, down 7.8% year on year. Operating revenue was up 4.8%, reaching $15.4 billion. Expenses grew 6.2% to $14 billion. United raised fourth-quarter capacity 6.5% year on year. Load factor was level at 82%. It ended 2025 with $15.2 billion in liquidity, and total debt and finance lease obligations of $25 billion. The carrier says it will take delivery of "over 100 narrowbody aircraft and approximately 20 Boeing 787 aircraft" in 2026.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has warned carriers to avoid Iranian airspace given the "potential for US military action" in the country. In a Conflict Zone Information Bulletin (CZIB), EASA notes that Iranian air defence forces are on a "heightened state of alert", leading to an increased risk of misidentification. Civil air traffic therefore faces a “high risk” at all altitudes and flight levels, adds the agency. Should military action break out, it warns, retaliatory action could be launched across the region, affecting the airspaces of neighbouring countries. The CZIB, issued on 16 January, lasts until 16 February. EASA issued CZIBs relating to Iranian airspace last summer as conflict broke out between the USA, Israel and Iran.

Industry body Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) has backed calls by the country's competition regulator to restrain the monopoly power that the country's airports have when negotiating aeronautical charges. In a submission to a Senate committee on transport and rural affairs, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) repeated its long-held position that "stronger regulatory oversight of the major airports is required to prevent them from exercising their market power and imposing higher charges on airlines, including those that operate in regional areas". The ACCC monitors and has oversight of airport aeronautical charges under legislation, but the body says that this "no longer acts as a constraint on behaviour because there is less of a threat of regulatory action than there was when the regime was first introduced over [two] decades ago". Instead, it is supporting calls by airlines to introduce a "negotiate/arbitrate" scheme that would allow for any breakdowns during negotiations with airports to be resolved by a third party. "We considered that this would incentivise the major airports to negotiate with the airlines in good faith," it adds. In response, A4ANZ chair Graeme Samuel says in a 19 January statement that the group supports the ACCC recommendation. "Commercial arbitration frameworks are common in other industries and cover all significant agreements. Arbitration would incentivise airports to negotiate in good faith and prevent excessive charges that harm consumers and the broader economy," he adds. Samuel is a former commissioner of the ACCC and says that with A$44 billion ($29.4 billion) of capital works planned for airports in the country "passenger charges are set to rise substantially, inevitably feeding into higher airfares and cargo prices". A 2019 inquiry by the government's Productivity Commission considered a negotiate/arbitrate framework for setting aeronautical charges but found that airports were not systematically abusing their market power, and there was "no justification for significant change to the current form of regulation of aeronautical services at any of these airports at this time". In its response, the government at that time agreed with the Commission's view, finding that there was "no current justification for significant change to the current form of 'light handed' economic regulation" of airports.