If we help them reduce taxes, the impact on the passenger is smaller
En un momento en que las tensiones geopolíticas en el Estrecho de Ormuz amenazan con encarecer el transporte aéreo global, el Consejo Mundial de Viajes y Turismo convocó una cumbre de urgencia para recordar a los gobiernos que la conectividad internacional no se sostiene sola. Gloria Guevara, su directora ejecutiva, argumentó desde el Canal de Suez que reducir los impuestos a las aerolíneas no es un privilegio sectorial, sino una decisión estratégica: proteger al viajero, mantener la frecuencia de vuelos y evitar que una crisis energética se convierta en una crisis turística prolongada. La historia del turismo moderno ha demostrado que cuando los sistemas de movilidad se contraen, las consecuencias se sienten mucho más allá de los aeropuertos.
- El cierre del Estrecho de Ormuz, provocado por la escalada entre Estados Unidos e Irán, ha disparado los precios del combustible de aviación y colocado a las aerolíneas ante una disyuntiva sin salida fácil.
- Las aerolíneas europeas cuentan con coberturas financieras que las protegen de la volatilidad, pero las estadounidenses carecen de esa red de seguridad y son las más expuestas a recortes de rutas y alzas de tarifas.
- El WTTC estima que esta crisis podría borrar dos meses de recuperación turística global, un sector que aún no ha terminado de reponerse de años de inestabilidad.
- Guevara propone una solución concreta: que los gobiernos reduzcan los impuestos a las aerolíneas para absorber parte del golpe antes de que llegue al bolsillo del pasajero.
- Sin intervención pública, el riesgo no es solo de precios más altos, sino de menos vuelos, menos destinos accesibles y una demanda turística internacional que volvería a contraerse.
Gloria Guevara eligió el Canal de Suez como escenario para lanzar un mensaje urgente: los gobiernos deben actuar ya para evitar que el encarecimiento del combustible de aviación frene la recuperación del turismo global. Desde a bordo del Crystal Serenity, la directora ejecutiva del Consejo Mundial de Viajes y Turismo convocó a una cumbre de emergencia mientras las tensiones entre Estados Unidos e Irán mantenían cerrado el Estrecho de Ormuz y los precios del queroseno seguían subiendo.
Su argumento era claro: si los gobiernos reducen los impuestos que gravan a las aerolíneas, estas podrán absorber mejor el impacto del combustible sin trasladarlo íntegramente al pasajero. La alternativa —recortar vuelos— era la que más preocupaba a Guevara, porque menos frecuencias significan menos turistas, y menos turistas significan un sector que tarda aún más en recuperarse. El WTTC calculó que esta crisis por sí sola podría costar al turismo mundial dos meses de avance.
El problema, además, no afecta a todos por igual. Las aerolíneas europeas llevan años protegiéndose mediante coberturas financieras que fijan el precio del combustible con antelación. Las estadounidenses, en cambio, han evitado esa práctica y ahora son mucho más vulnerables a los vaivenes del mercado. Esa asimetría podría traducirse en recortes más agresivos al otro lado del Atlántico si no hay respuesta institucional.
Guevara fue prudente al rechazar la idea de que algún destino pudiera beneficiarse de la crisis como refugio turístico. No se trata de ganar cuota a costa de otros, insistió, sino de mantener en funcionamiento un sistema global de movilidad del que todos dependen. Egipto, país anfitrión de la cumbre, fue presentado como ejemplo de resiliencia: con ingresos turísticos en alza y el recién inaugurado Gran Museo Egipcio exhibiendo más de 20.000 piezas por primera vez, el mensaje era que el turismo puede seguir generando valor incluso en tiempos inciertos. Pero solo si los gobiernos deciden acompañarlo.
Gloria Guevara stood aboard the Crystal Serenity as it moved through the Suez Canal, one of the world's most vital shipping routes, to deliver a message the tourism industry needed to hear: governments must act now to shield travelers from the rising cost of jet fuel.
The World Travel & Tourism Council, the private sector organization headquartered in Madrid that represents the global tourism industry, had called an emergency summit in the middle of a geopolitical crisis. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, triggered by escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, had sent fuel prices climbing. Airlines were absorbing the shock, but the question was whether they would pass those costs to passengers—and whether governments would help prevent it.
Guevara's argument was straightforward: reduce airline taxes now, and the burden on travelers shrinks. The math was simple enough. When fuel costs rise and airlines face pressure from all sides, they have limited options. They can absorb the hit to their margins, they can raise ticket prices, or they can cut flights. The third option worried her most. Fewer flights meant fewer seats, which meant fewer tourists could travel, which meant the global tourism recovery—already fragile after years of volatility—would stall. The WTTC estimated this new crisis alone would cost the sector two months of recovery time.
"If we help them reduce taxes, even if airlines face higher fuel costs, the impact on the passenger is smaller," Guevara explained to journalists gathered on the ship. She framed it as a choice for governments: those that responded effectively would gain competitive advantage. Countries that did nothing would watch their tourism sectors weaken as travelers found cheaper routes elsewhere.
But the problem was not evenly distributed. European airlines had spent years building financial hedging strategies—essentially buying fuel in advance at locked-in prices to protect themselves from volatility. American carriers, by contrast, had largely avoided this practice. They were now more exposed, more vulnerable to the shock. This asymmetry mattered. It meant that without intervention, the pain would be felt unevenly across the Atlantic, with U.S. carriers potentially forced into more aggressive cost-cutting.
Guevara was careful not to oversell the moment. She rejected the idea that any single country could emerge as a "refuge" destination, a safe haven that would capture tourism fleeing from disrupted regions. That kind of zero-sum thinking, she suggested, missed the point. This was not about winners and losers among destinations. It was about whether the entire system could keep moving.
The summit itself was a statement. Held aboard a cruise ship in one of the world's most symbolically important waterways, it was meant to project calm and continuity. Egypt, the host nation, was presented as a success story—tourism revenues climbing, the newly opened Grand Egyptian Museum showcasing over 100,000 artifacts, 20,000 of them on display for the first time. The message: even in uncertain times, the tourism machine could still deliver growth and wonder.
But that required governments to make a choice. Tax cuts for airlines were not charity. They were an investment in keeping the system functioning, in maintaining the connectivity that allowed people to move, to travel, to spend money in distant places. Without that intervention, the crisis would ripple outward—fewer flights, higher prices, reduced demand, and a tourism sector that would take longer to recover than it already had.
Notable Quotes
Governments that respond more effectively will have greater competitive advantage— Gloria Guevara, WTTC president and CEO
If airline capacity is reduced, there will be far fewer seats and that will have an impact— Gloria Guevara
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the WTTC think tax cuts are the answer here? Why not just let airlines manage their own costs?
Because airlines don't operate in isolation. If fuel costs spike and they absorb it, they either go broke or they cut flights. Cut flights, and you've shrunk the entire market. Tax relief is a way to preserve capacity—to keep seats available so people can still travel.
But doesn't that just subsidize the airlines? Why should taxpayers cover their fuel problem?
It's not really a subsidy in the traditional sense. It's a temporary measure to prevent a cascade. When one airline cuts routes, it doesn't just hurt that airline—it hurts hotels, restaurants, tour operators in every destination that airline served. The tax relief is cheaper than the economic damage from a contracting tourism sector.
Guevara mentioned European airlines have hedging strategies. Why didn't American carriers do the same?
Culture and risk appetite, mostly. European airlines built hedging into their business model years ago. American carriers didn't see the need or didn't want to tie up capital that way. Now they're exposed. It's a competitive disadvantage, but it also means they're more vulnerable to exactly this kind of shock.
Is she saying no country can benefit from this crisis?
Exactly. She's pushing back against the idea that some destination will steal tourists from others. That's a misreading of what's happening. The real risk is that the total number of tourists shrinks. Everyone loses. The only winners are governments that act fast to keep the system intact.
What happens if governments don't cut taxes?
Airlines reduce capacity. Fewer flights, higher prices, less demand. Tourism growth stalls. The sector loses two months of recovery—maybe more. And the longer it takes to recover, the harder it is for smaller operators to survive.