money

A flight attendant has revealed the best way to save money ahead of a holiday abroad, and it could cost just £4.99 and save travellers £100 if they are ‘proactive’

A flight attendant has revealed a savvy £4.99 hack for holidaymakers that could help them cut costs on their next getaway.

We’re always on the lookout for ways to save some extra cash, whether that’s a packing tip to avoid paying for luggage, being flexible with our travel dates to secure the best price, or flying from a different airport. One sure way to save money is how you get to the airport, with parking prices astronomical at some airport hubs, which can reach as much as £132 for a week’s stay or £8 for every five minutes at a drop-off area.

In a bid to avoid these unwanted charges, some travellers opt to be dropped off at the airport, while others book their parking months in advance or a car park farther from the airport to secure a lower price. However, Wizz Air cabin crew member Adam Hodge, 35, has outlined a vital hack for getting to the airport, and it could cost just £4.99.

READ MORE: ‘I’m cabin crew – Europe has the best Maldives dupe just three hours from the UK’READ MORE: ‘I’m cabin crew – there’s a major downside to seats with extra legroom’

Speaking exclusively to the Mirror, Adam, who is based at Luton Airport, revealed: “You can get some really cheap deals on the trains and the bus.

“In Luton, for example, there’s now going to be two coach operators, National Express and FlixBus, so it means there’s going to be even more affordable options to get from the centre of London or the surrounding area, such as Cambridge, Milton Keynes and as far as Gatwick.

“If you book in advance, you can get a ticket, with FlixBus for example, for as little as £4.99.

“For National Express, if you have a coach pass, you can get fares from as little as £10 one-way, to and from the centre of London, Gatwick or one of the connecting airports.”

But that’s not the only affordable option. Adam highlighted: “At Luton Airport, there are also two train operators, Thames Link and East Midlands Railway.

“On East Midlands Railway, you can get a fare to St Pancras from Luton Airport Parkway or Luton for as little as £4.95, if you book and plan in advance. It has to be the specified train at the specified time, but if you’re flexible and want to save some money, you can get some really cheap fares if you book ahead.”

He added: “It’s about being proactive and saving a bit of money, especially with the cost of living crisis. And I think it’s actually very savvy and fashionable to be seen saving money, and being more money-conscious.”

While Adam mentioned Luton Airport, most UK airports also offer similar bus and coach services, so it’s well worth checking in advance to plan your route and secure the best price. And with some prices starting as low as £4.99, it’s a no-brainer.

Having travelled to around 30 countries, with Prague and Tirana being his personal favourites,

Away from airport travel, Adam has a wealth of other knowledge and advice, having visited around 30 countries, with Prague and Tirana being his personal favourites. One piece of advice is about what he packs, and there’s one item he never travels without.

“I had been looking at this item for a while, and I wasn’t sure at first, but now I have them, I’ve got them in all my suitcases, my crew bag and cabin bag,” Adam told the Mirror.

He revealed: “They are suitcase packing cubes, and are like little pouches. The worst thing is when you open a suitcase, and everything falls out, but with the packing cubes, everything is organised.

“For example, you have your electricals, your tops, trousers and shoes, they fit everything in organised cases, and you can actually fit more in, so it’s a really good hack. They don’t take up any space, so when they’re empty, they just lie flat, and they’re not bulky.”

To check out Adam’s public transport recommendations to the airport, visit the National Express or FlixBus websites. Or for more information about Wizz Air flights or to book your next trip, visit their website.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Published on 18/04/2026 – 22:58 GMT+2•Updated
23:06

A coalition of EU-based chemical producers of titanium dioxide – a strategic chemical used in green energy and aerospace – has lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging unfair foreign subsidies against leading Chinese producer LB Group, which is seeking to acquire a UK plant of British competitor Venator, Euronews has learned.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move follows the European Commission’s decision in January 2025 to impose anti-dumping duties on LB Group, a trade defence measure targeting low-priced imports into the EU.

Acquiring a production plant in the UK would allow the Chinese group to export its products to the European market duty-free under the EU-UK trade agreement, circumventing EU anti-dumping tariffs.

The EU chemical sector is under pressure from growing competition from Chinese rivals, which are flooding the market with overcapacity.

The alliance behind the complaint against LB Group includes several companies producing in the EU — US-based Tronox and Kronos, Czech Precheza and Slovenian Cinkarna — collectively accounting for about 90% of EU titanium dioxide production.

Enforcing the Foreign Subsidies Regulation outside the EU

Sources said the complaint was filed in December 2025, urging the European Commission to investigate the Chinese company over alleged unfair foreign subsidies used to finance the acquisition of Venator’s plant.

The EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation, adopted in 2022, allows the Commission to investigate non-EU companies to assess whether they benefit from distortive foreign subsidies to make acquisitions in the EU or take part in public procurement.

The tool was initially designed with China in mind, reflecting concerns over excessive state subsidies support for Chinese companies acquiring strategic EU assets or infrastructure. However, the regulation has not yet been applied outside the EU.

The plant targeted by LB Group is located in Greatham in northeast England, which left the EU in 2020 after Brexit. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is currently reviewing the deal and is expected to issue a decision in May.

If the European Commission opens an investigation under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, it could set a precedent and send a strong signal globally.

The move would come as the EU chemical industry loses market share in Europe.

According to Cefic, which represents the sector in Brussels, the bloc has lost around 9% of its production capacity since 2022, resulting in the loss of 20,000 direct jobs.

WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

American sanctions on the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) have been relieved, generating a flurry of speculations over what is next for the financial sector and the broader economy. After the big news, Delcy Rodríguez announced the resignation of BCV President Laura Guerra on Thursday night. Guerra is the sister of Nicolás Maduro’s first wife, and the aunt of Nicolasito Maduro Guerra.

At least for now, the central bank will be led by Guerra’s former deputy, Luis Pérez-González, a name that is as underwhelming as any of his predecessors. Pérez has been a member of the BCV board since April 2025. Before that, his experience in monetary policy was nil. He was in charge of Carbones del Zulia and of “Monitoring and Control of Eco-mining Development” in Maduro’s Ministry of Mining. You can find him playing Frank Sinatra songs in his spare time.

It doesn’t look like this will be Delcy’s permanent pick.

Before diving into the immediate and medium term effect that recent developments could have, it is worth highlighting what the BCV’s actual purpose is and the spectacular failure that has driven the institution to near irrelevance. 

Ironically, Venezuelan law mandates the BCV to ensure price stability and preserve the value of the currency. We don’t have to go far back to remember the multiple zeros stripped from the bolívar after one of the longest hyperinflationary episodes in modern history, directly contradicting its constitutional mandate. After all, this is a central bank that went years without publishing any data, and when it resumed, it released incomplete figures, forcing economists to reconstruct years of missing information. It is the same BCV that despite its constitutional mandate did not make any counterbalance to the completely irresponsible fiscal policy of the Chávez and Maduro era, shattering any sort of credibility it may have had. 

Nevertheless, reviving the BCV is crucial to the reintegration of the financial sector into the wider Venezuelan economy. In the near term, the effects of sanctions relief will likely be most visible in exchange rate auctions. Greater transparency and reliability in these operations will help reduce the gap between the official and the black market rates. This would directly affect daily life, reducing price distortions and helping stabilize inflation expectations for ordinary Venezuelans. It would also reopen the door to multilateral institutions and international markets, particularly renewed engagement with the International Monetary Fund, which is a necessary step toward debt restructuring and access to credit.

However, there is no on and off switch in terms of trustworthiness, and the BCV is supposed to be in the credibility business.The effectiveness of any central bank relies on its independence from political pressures and ability to communicate a coherent monetary policy, not just on the technical capacity of who runs it. Undermining that independence is what ultimately kills the effectiveness of any policy it may attempt to implement. 

Delcy needs to set up an independent central bank to satisfy the economic discourse, attract investment, and control inflationary pressures. Doing so will require establishing the first institution capable of challenging the administration from within.

This is true everywhere, as hard fought-battles are being waged around the economic world on this matter. From Trump’s challenges to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which unsettled financial markets, to standout regional cases like Peru, where the central bank has been single-handedly supporting the economy despite near-permanente political turmoil. These examples highlight just how crucial central bank independence is to real economic stability.

Restoring trust in the BCV goes beyond who runs it, but the naming of the new president is one of the most crucial decisions that the interim administration of Delcy Rodríguez will have to make. Whoever is chosen will be scrutinized by both ordinary Venezuelans and international investors to gauge the commitment of Rodríguez to carry out the necessary economic reforms. Someone that falls short of being able to implement true independence and restore confidence in the system will just undermine all the political speech of the economy first that is currently being put on display. 

The paradox is that Delcy needs to set up an independent central bank to satisfy the economic discourse, attract investment, and control inflationary pressures. But doing so will require establishing the first institution capable of challenging the administration from within. This is where the political and economic reality clash.

The decision comes with a level of urgency, as patience is starting to run out in an internal political climate that is heating up. Trade unions and pensioners have recently taken to the streets to demand higher wages and benefits. Appointing someone close to the previous administration will increase frustration and complicate the weak equilibrium that Rodríguez has built around the promise to rebuild the economy.  

The interim government is attempting to make itself useful to the American overlords by convincing them that they have the ability and willingness to commit to economic reform. Failure to follow through with an independent BCV board could strain the relationship further and make it even harder to justify. Now that sanctions have been lifted and oil money is flowing through US-backed accounts, it is time for the interim authority to live up to their side of the bargain, as Delcy risks losing the little goodwill her administration has left.  

Attention is now focused on who will be appointed to lead the BCV, and whether that choice signals a genuine shift toward institutional autonomy or a continuation of past policy constraints.

Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.

OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.

Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.

By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.

But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.

If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.

By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.

Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?

Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.

Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.

In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.

(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)

It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.

A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.

When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.

But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.

Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.

To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.

But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.

They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.

For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”