costs

Villa Vie Residences has announced plans for a new residential cruise ship where people can buy cabins and live at sea permanently – with prices starting lower than average London property

Ever reached the end of a cruise and wished you could just keep on sailing? Well, your dreams might soon become reality. A US firm has unveiled plans for a residential cruise ship that lets you live permanently at sea. However, prospective passengers will need to dig deep into their pockets to secure a spot.

Villa Vie Residences already operates one residential cruise ship, the Odyssey, which has been embarking on a continuous global cruise since October 2024. Despite being delayed by technical issues and leaving Belfast several months late, it’s currently navigating its way through a 15-year planned itinerary.

The current cruise is set to circumnavigate the globe multiple times, with each journey lasting three and a half years, reports the Express.

The company has now announced plans, dubbed Project Lumina, to acquire a luxury cruise ship for residents to live on either full or part-time. They suggest these all-inclusive cruises could even prove cheaper than living on dry land.

Those seeking a permanent home on the ship can bag an oceanview room from $539,999 (around £404,000) or upgrade to a suite with a balcony for $899,999 (roughly £637,000). Monthly fees will apply for residents.

However, more affordable options such as five-year ownerships and rentals are available for those not planning to make the sea their long-term home.

The average cost of a flat in London, rather dishearteningly, typically ranges between £530,000 and £610,000, making the new cruise ship a potentially more affordable option. Those who purchase these rooms aren’t required to live in them permanently.

There are alternatives available, such as renting them out when not in use. Passengers also have the option to invite guests on board for a stay, at a fee.

While the exact details of the ship remain confidential, the company confirmed in a statement that the cruise will offer ‘ultra-luxury’ and operate alongside their existing Odyssey service.

On Villa Vie’s current residential cruise, the amenities are akin to those found on a standard cruise ship, with some bespoke extras for those embarking on longer-term journeys. There’s gourmet dining, entertainment, a swimming pool, optional excursions, and regular housekeeping.

Residents also benefit from a fortnightly laundry service and include medical visits. A social club and regular events for passengers ensure no one feels isolated during this extended voyage.

Although many current passengers on the Odyssey are retirees, the cruise is also targeting remote workers and digital nomads who can work from anywhere in the world. There’s a business centre on board and high-speed WiFi provided by Starlink, enabling people to make video calls on the go.

READ MORE: UK’s ‘best Christmas walk’ takes you across the beach to traditional pubREAD MORE: Brits’ 30 most cringeworthy holiday disasters from sunburn to missing flights

In a statement released to PR Newswire, the newly-appointed President Chris Cox expressed: “I’m thrilled to join Villa Vie at such a defining moment for the brand and for the category. There is incredible demand for authentic, residential oceangoing lifestyles-from attainable world-travel homes to ultra-luxury villa experiences.

“Project Lumina will be about listening carefully to that demand and translating it into beautifully designed, high-value products that feel both elevated and deeply personal.”

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Switzerland will cut back its order for 36 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighters in response to the program’s ballooning costs. The announcement puts a question mark over the future of the procurement. It also comes at a time when other customers are also looking at the stealth jet in terms of the value it gives for the considerable investment, not just in terms of upfront costs, but especially sustainment throughout the aircraft’s service life.

Following a cabinet meeting, the Swiss government today said it had instructed the defense ministry to buy the highest possible number of F-35As within the previously agreed budget of six billion Swiss francs ($7.54 billion). Reports suggest that, while the Swiss government viewed this as a fixed price, the United States later refuted that and claimed it was a misunderstanding.

“Due to foreseeable cost overruns, maintaining the originally planned number of 36 F-35As is not financially feasible,” the government said in a statement.

It’s presently unclear how many jets the Swiss budget will cover, but it’s worth noting that Finland’s order for 64 F-35As, budgeted at $9.4 billion, worked out with an equivalent cost-per-jet of around $82 million. However, additional costs of infrastructure, weapons, maintenance equipment, spare parts, training, and other systems and services need to be factored in. In the case of the F-35, in particular, these costs are uniquely high.

The original Swiss budget for a new fighter was narrowly approved by the public in a 2020 referendum.

A referendum is an unusual quirk of Swiss procurement, with the most expensive arms purchases first having to win the backing of the country’s voters. In this way, the maximum spend of six billion Swiss francs was approved before the type had been selected.

The F-35 fought off competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

After what was described as a “comprehensive technical evaluation,” Switzerland’s Federal Council announced in 2021 that it planned to recommend to the country’s parliament that it procure 36 F-35As as part of the Air2030 program. The package also includes five Patriot air defense systems from Raytheon, which will provide the Alpine nation with a new long-range ground-based air defense capability.

“An evaluation has revealed that these two systems [F-35A and Patriot] offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost,” the Federal Council explained in a statement. “The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future.”

The F-35 will replace the Swiss Air Force’s existing fleet of 30 ‘legacy’ F/A-18C/D Hornets, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2030, as well as its aging F-5E/F Tiger II jets, which are slated for retirement in 2027. The first new F-35As were once expected to arrive in the country from 2025, a date that has already been pushed back.

Ironically, Swiss media reports at the time suggested that the F-35 was selected as it offered the best value for money.

“According to insiders, Switzerland can buy a larger number of F-35s with the budgeted six billion Swiss francs [$6.53 billion] than would be the case with the three competitors,” Swiss broadcaster SRF reported, citing anonymous sources.

According to the Federal Council’s findings, as of 2021, the fleet of 36 F-35As would cost around $5.48 billion, well within the price cap.

Now, at the current exchange rate, the budget cap stands at 7.54 billion, which is no longer sufficient for 36 of the stealth jets.

Meanwhile, regardless of unit price, the cost of actually sustaining the jets once in service has long been a cause for concern.

There’s also the issue of the delayed Block 4 upgrade and the lack of clarity around how much customers will actually pay for this. Block 4 supports a brand-new radar and a host of other capabilities. Among them are increased missile capacity, new weaponry, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and improved target recognition. 

As we pointed out in the past, Block 4 might only start to become available after the Swiss begin receiving their jets, which would require them to either upgrade or decide against getting that capability boost.

It’s also far from clear what will happen next in Switzerland’s F-35 procurement; a lot will depend on how many of the jets can actually be obtained within the stipulated budget.

In the past, Switzerland has not been averse to walking away from fighter procurements entirely.

A previous fighter competition that sought a partial replacement for the F-5 fleet saw the Saab Gripen E/F being chosen, with a decision to buy 22 examples, before the entire project was rejected by a referendum in 2014.

At the same time, it’s likely that at least some Swiss Cabinet members would prefer a European fighter, and critics of the F-35 have previously suggested another referendum to potentially overturn the decision to buy American. This issue has only become magnified since the Swiss decision, with European countries increasingly uncertain about buying U.S. defense products.

There’s also a big question over whether Switzerland needs such a sophisticated, low-observable multirole fighter, since its primary responsibility will be day-to-day air policing. The Swiss Air Force also sits outside of NATO, so it doesn’t make operational deployments outside of its borders.

Another option could see a push for a cheaper ‘complementary’ fighter, or light combat aircraft, to provide additional combat (and advanced training) ‘mass’ alongside a reduced fleet of F-35s. This would parallel the existing order of battle in which F-5s operate alongside F/A-18s.

There is also the possibility that Switzerland determines that it needs the full 36 F-35s. The Swiss government also recently said that the deteriorating security situation in Europe means that the Swiss Air Force could need between 55 and 70 new fighter jets.

If that becomes policy, another referendum might be required on the total budget. The question could be put to the Swiss public, with a decision again to be made independent of aircraft type.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.

Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.

Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.

“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”

Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.

Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.

But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.

The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on healthcare. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.

The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.

An intractable issue

The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.

Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that healthcare is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy healthcare on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.

“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.

Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”

A plethora of plans, but little agreement

Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.

Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.

In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.

Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on healthcare.

If they fail to act and healthcare costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

A proposed tax increase in one European country has sparked concern

Ryanair has blasted moves that could see passengers pay higher bills under moves to increase airport departure taxes in one popular European destination by as much as double the current rate. In Belgium, the current federal tax stands at five euros per passenger and will be increased to 10 euros per passenger from 2027, which may see costs pushed onto passengers.

On top of this, Charleroi Airport in Belgium will reportedly make passengers spend three euros on their flights, according to proposals made by the Charleroi City Council. Some European publications have speculated this will push competition onto cheaper flights in neighbouring airports such as Paris-Beauvais and Lille Airport.

Ryanair are furious. In response to the proposed tax change, the airline has already confirmed this week that it will cut one million seats from its Brussels Winter 2026/27 schedule.

Ryanair said this move will also affect 20 routes on the schedule while arguing that the move is in direct opposition to other EU markets such as Slovakia, Sweden, Italy, and Hungary, where it claims such taxes are being cut down to drive up tourism. Because of this, Ryanair is calling on both the Belgian Prime Minister De Wever and the Mayor of Charleroi, Thomas Dermine, to reverse the proposed plans.

Ryanair’s Jason McGuinness said: “The De Wever Govt has bizarrely decided to further increase Belgium’s already sky-high aviation tax by another +100% from Jan 2027, on top of the +150% in July last. These repeated increases to this harmful aviation tax make Belgium completely uncompetitive compared to the many other EU countries, like Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and Slovakia, where Govts are abolishing aviation taxes to drive traffic, tourism, and jobs.

“As a result of this second tax hike in just 5 months, Ryanair has been forced to cut -22% of its Brussels traffic (-1m seats), -5 aircraft from our Charleroi base (loss of US$500m investment), and 20 routes (13 from Charleroi & 7 from Zaventem) for Winter 26/27. Should the Charleroi city council proceed with its ill-judged proposal to introduce further taxes on passengers departing from Charleroi next year, these cuts will deepen as Ryanair will be forced to reduce flights, routes and based aircraft at Charleroi from as early as April 2026 with thousands of local jobs at risk.

“If Prime Minister De Wever and his Govt really wanted to revive Belgium’s economy, they should abolish this harmful aviation tax, not double it. Despite so many other EU countries taking this step to support their economies, Belgium is going in the opposite direction, driving up access costs and pushing airlines and tourism elsewhere.

“We urge Prime Minister De Wever to scrap this damaging aviation tax before Belgian’s traffic, tourism, jobs, and the wider economy collapse any further. Furthermore, the Charleroi city council needs to abandon its lunatic plans to increase taxes driving job losses with the effect of lowering payroll, VAT and corporate tax receipts for the local economy.”

Belgium receives more than 18 million tourists each year. According to the latest data from the British government, around 1.3 million Brits travel to Belgium each year.

The proposed doubling is reportedly designed to help finance airport infrastructure and meet new environmental requirements, according to Air Journal.