Air Canada plans to bar carry-on bags and impose a seat selection fee for its lowest-fare customers in the new year, as discount carrier tactics increasingly enter the mainstream. Starting Jan. 3, basic fare passengers on trips within North America and to sun destinations will have to check duffel bags, rolling suitcases and large backpacks for a fee — $35 for the first, $50 for the second. A small personal item such as a purse or laptop bag will be allowed on board for free, as will strollers, mobility aids and medical devices. The country’s largest airline also said that as of Jan. 21, lower-tier customers will have to pay if they want to change the seat assigned to them at check-in — a policy it had suspended just two days after implementation earlier this year amid backlash from travellers. The moves mark a shift toward a budget airline-style offering from Canada’s flag carrier, which along with rivals has relied increasingly on ancillary fees for formerly bundled services that range from checked bags to on-board snacks and Wi-Fi access. Air Canada says the changes align its fare structure with similar ticket options from other Canadian carriers and “better distinguish its fare brands.” In June, WestJet rolled out its “UltraBasic” fare. The ticket tier allows no more than a personal item on board — stored under the seat — and charges a fee for seat selection, including after check-in, whether online or in-person. Discount carrier Flair Airlines always charges for a carry-on, which costs between $29 and $74 depending on its size. No-frills fares carry growing appeal for big airlines seeking to capture cost-conscious travellers as budgets tighten after inflation and interest rate hikes. “They’re competing with these low-cost carriers on various routes,” said Richard Vanderlubbe, founder of Hamilton, Ont.-based travel agency Tripcentral.ca. “This is what wins in the price-sensitive area of the market.” Criticism of bare-bones ticket offerings is “easy,” Vanderlubbe said, but the fare tiers — up to seven at Air Canada — give travellers choice. U.S. carriers such as United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines have similar categories, though American and Delta still allow basic economy travellers to bring a bag onto the plane at no cost. “It’s a market solution to kind of an ugly problem,” Vanderlubbe said. “If you’re paying the lowest of the low, then who should get the middle seat at the back?” He added that customers need to be aware that what they see as the lowest fare on a price comparison search may not wind up being the cheapest option once the fees are tallied. “It’s not transparent until you’ve gotten a certain depth into the booking: ‘Oh, here’s the seat selection fee. Oh, here’s the baggage fee. Oh, here’s the carry-on fee.’ And watch out if you don’t check in online, there’s a massive penalty if you don’t,” Vanderlubbe said. “It’s kind of drip, drip, drip, drip. And it works,” he said, calling the trend “troublesome.” Transport Minister Anita Anand agreed. “I was just made aware of a decision by Air Canada to introduce new carry-on baggage fees. I am extremely concerned. Canadians work hard and save up to travel. They rightly expect excellent service, not extra fees,” she said Wednesday in a social media post on X, formerly known as Twitter. Some competitors sought to seize on Air Canada’s announcement to highlight their own offerings. “Now the choice should be clear,” Flair said in a post on X. “The products are the same, one just costs way less.” That’s not always true. Some Toronto-Vancouver tickets in March start at $129 for Flair and $135 for Air Canada and WestJet. Other routes see a bigger difference, with Calgary-Toronto priced at $139 for Flair, $209 for Air Canada, $175 for WestJet and $198 for Porter. Air Canada noted that basic fare passengers who arrive at the boarding gate with ineligible bags will be charged $65 per item to check them. It also announced that customers on its “comfort economy” fare — the middle of the seven tiers — can check two bags for free starting Jan. 3, rather than one. Air Canada took in nearly US$2 billion in so-called ancillary revenue in 2022, up by nearly 50 per cent from five years earlier, according to airline consulting firm IdeaWorksCompany. The category’s share of total revenue for the company grew to more than 15 per cent from below 11 per cent in the same five-year period.Article content The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce has joined other chambers and the Alberta government in signing a letter asking the federal government to withdraw its proposed emissions cap. The draft oil and gas sector greenhouse emissions cap regulations were published by the federal government on Nov. 4, outlining how the government aims to impose a limit on emissions — a move that the Edmonton chamber and its co-signatories at the Calgary chamber and Canadian chamber say will hurt more than it will help. “We have similar concerns that all the other organizations do in the negative economic impact it’s going to have on Alberta, and we’re particularly concerned about the impact it can have on Edmonton,” said Doug Griffiths, Edmonton Chamber of Commerce president and CEO. He said the oil and gas head offices in Calgary would be hit hard but the effect could also bleed into a broad range of Edmonton’s business community, including construction, finance, and engineering services that the city provides to the oil and gas industry. “We think the impact is going to be significant at a time when we can’t really afford that economically,” said Griffiths. The emissions cap draft released last month outlines how the federal government intends to cut the oil and gas industry’s emissions by capping its GHG emissions and installing a cap-and-trade system. The cap would be set at 27 per cent below 2026 emissions, which is estimated to be 35 per cent of the reported emissions in 2019. “The challenge with that is it’s still essentially a pay to pollute system. So when you’re trying to reduce overall if you can afford to buy credits, and it will drive the price of credits up, then you can continue to release carbon,” Griffiths said. The federal government said in its draft that the proposal would have “incremental” impacts on the economy, and administrative costs of $3.3 billion to industry and nearly $220 million to governments. Signatories of the letter cite a study conducted by Deloitte on behalf of the Alberta government that shows a different outcome with more dire effects to the Alberta economy. It predicts that faced with this cap, the industry is less likely to invest in carbon capture and more greenhouse gas-reduction innovation and would instead just decrease production of oil by 10 per cent and 16 per cent in conventional gas production by 2030 to meet the emissions restriction. The Edmonton chamber and other signatories predict that the cap could cause a 4.5 per cent drop in Alberta’s GDP by 2040 and a cumulative loss of more than $190 billion over a decade. Griffiths said the efforts to reduce emissions are important, but could be achieved in different ways. “I think we could get to similar targets if there were more innovative policies that were focused on driving innovation, technology solutions, rather than a cap and trade system,” he said. Griffiths said while there’s no other country with a perfect model that Canada could replicate, he suggested examining Nordic countries for their approach because of the similarly cold climates relying on oil and gas. For its part, last week the Alberta government tabled a sovereignty act motion to challenge the federal emissions cap ahead of the legislature’s adjournment until 2025. The motion includes several measures aimed to protect Alberta’s oil and gas industry from the effects of the cap, including restrictions from enforcement of the cap, defining all oil and gas facilities as essential infrastructure, and limiting data on the oil and gas industry as proprietary information, among others. The motion must be debated in the legislature before it can be passed with a majority vote when the session resumes next year. — with files from Matthew Blackq slot 。

AAP, BJP lock horns after Arvind Kejriwal "attacked" by bus marshal during Padyatra in Delhi

NoneBy JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. Related Articles House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.

Republican Rails Against Bill Banning Lawmakers from Trading Stocks: 'How About We Don't Make Any Money Either?'

White House says at least 8 US telecom firms, dozens of nations impacted by China hacking campaignBy Eric Martin, Bloomberg News (TNS) WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Donald Trump disavowed the MAGA manifesto Project 2025 , calling its ideas “abysmal.” Now the president-elect has nominated or appointed to his incoming administration at least five people involved in the project. The plan became public more than a year ago as the presidential campaign was intensifying. The project was led by the conservative Heritage Foundation and included views of anti-immigrant, anti-reproductive rights, small-government conservatives, gifting Democrats with an easy bullseye for attacks on Trump’s “extreme” views, as Democratic nominee Kamala Harris called them. The plan proposes to eliminate climate-change rules, lessen worker protections, replace civil servants with Trump loyalists and dismantle at least parts of the Education, Commerce and Homeland Security departments, among other things. More: Latest Trump picks include wrestling’s Linda McMahon for education department Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail, claiming to know nothing about it and saying he disagreed with some of its “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” ideas. His own transition co-chair — and now Commerce Secretary-designate — Howard Lutnick told The Washington Post, “I won’t take a list from them. I won’t take a topic from them. I won’t touch them. They made themselves nuclear.” At least five people involved in Project 2025 have been tapped for jobs in the second Trump administration. Brendan Carr, author of the document’s chapter on the Federal Communications Commission, was nominated to lead the agency that regulates television and the Internet. Carr’s recommendations in Project 2025 include limiting protections for Big Tech companies that conservatives allege over-moderate content, particularly Meta Inc.’s Facebook and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. After his nomination, Carr pledged in a post on X to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” Russ Vought, author of a core chapter arguing for cutting the size of the federal bureaucracy and strengthening the president’s control over it, has been nominated to lead the Office of Management and Budget, according to CBS News . In his chapter, Vought focuses on reducing the size of government and allowing empowered political appointees to overrule career bureaucrats. Vought also encourages the aggressive use of executive orders from the start of the administration — something that Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the president-elect plans to do. Tom Homan was tapped for a “border czar” role, and is listed as a contributor to the report. Project 2025 focuses on deporting millions of undocumented migrants, especially criminals. Trump says he plans to declare a national emergency, which would allow him to deploy the military to round up immigrants, guard detention camps and fly them out of the country. Homan, the public face of Trump’s zero-tolerance policies of his first term, has said that this time, he will brook no resistance in liberal cities. “If you’re not going to help us, get the hell out of the way,” he warned sanctuary cities. More: Pa. farm industry braces for raids, deportations under proposed Trump policy John Ratcliffe was nominated to lead the Central Intelligence Agency and is another named contributor to Project 2025. Ratcliffe, a former member of Congress and Trump’s director of national intelligence in his first term, has consistently warned about the need to protect the U.S. against Beijing’s aim to dominate economically, militarily and technologically, and criticized China’s largest companies as a front for the Communist Party. Project 2025 likewise warns extensively about the need to guard against the threat from China. Pete Hoekstra was nominated as the ambassador to Canada. A former member of the House intelligence committee, he was Trump’s envoy to the Netherlands in the first term and was criticized for hosting far-right politicians at an embassy party. Hoekstra is listed as a Project 2025 contributor, with the report noting his 1990s’ criticism of waste at the Department of Education, which Trump said he would dismantle. None of the nominees immediately responded to requests for comment. “President Trump never had anything to do with Project 2025,” said Karoline Leavitt, a Trump spokeswoman and his choice for press secretary. “All of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Eighteen of the 40 Project 2025 authors and editors come from the first Trump first administration. Those include Ken Cuccinelli, the former acting deputy head of Homeland Security; Christopher Miller, the former acting Defense secretary; and Peter Navarro, a top trade adviser. More on politics Judge delays sentencing Trump for his hush-money case conviction Trump chooses Pam Bondi for attorney general pick after Gaetz withdraws Incumbent Bob Casey concedes Pennsylvania Senate race to Dave McCormick Gaetz withdraws as Trump’s pick for attorney generalColumbia, a perennial football loser, wins Ivy League title for first time since 1961

Arsenal thump West Ham with five-star show to go second

World War 3 has 'already started', claims top Ukraine commander in chilling warning

Is David Montgomery playing in Week 13? Latest injury update on Lions running back | Sporting News

Published 4:48 pm Wednesday, December 4, 2024 By Data Skrive There are seven games featuring a ranked team on the Thursday college basketball schedule, including the Duke Blue Devils versus the South Carolina Gamecocks. Watch women’s college basketball, other live sports and more on Fubo. What is Fubo? Fubo is a streaming service that gives you access to your favorite live sports and shows on demand. Use our link to sign up. Catch tons of live women’s college basketball , plus original programming, with ESPN+ or the Disney Bundle.