planned

British holidaymakers travelling to and from a popular Spanish destination have been warned about planned strikes that could cause delays and disruptions during the summer holidays

Brits jetting off abroad to a major holiday hotspot are being warned about travel disruptions due to planned strikes set to start this week.

Holidaymakers travelling through Palma de Mallorca Airport (PMI) could face significant delays as Swissport workers are due to strike on Tuesday, 28 July, with TUI one of the affected airlines. Further walk-outs in the Swissport ground handling strike are planned for the summer holidays, including on August 1, 4, and 8 from 7am to 12pm and 7pm to 10pm.

To make matters worse, full 24-hour daily walkouts are also set to take place this week, starting from today (Monday, 27 July) until Thursday (30 July). This industrial action, known as the metal sector strike, has been planned by three unions and covers 39,000 workers across the Balearic Islands who are demanding “fair wage increases and protection against inflation”, Palma Airport outlined.

However, Palma Airport warned that there is a “crucial overlap date” for Tuesday, 28 July, as the two strikes coincide. This could result in the worst-impacted day for travellers passing through the airport with delays and disruptions, as various airlines could be affected.

Palma Airport explained that Swissport provides essential passenger, baggage handling and ramp services to a specific group of international carriers, including TUI, Condor, TAP Air Portugal, Air Canada, Etihad Airways, Albastar and DAT. While other airlines at Palma use different ground handling providers, such as Ryanair, EasyJet, or Jet2, the airport warned that “large-scale airport strikes can occasionally create a minor knock-on effect”, but Swissport passengers are expected to be the worst affected.

Meanwhile, the airport warned that the regional metal sector strike “covers technical personnel across the entire airport”, meaning that its impact will “stretch beyond Swissport-handled airlines to affect all carriers operating at Palma, Ibiza, and Menorca.” They added that “passengers on any airline could face localised delays” on those specific dates (July 27 to 30).

The airport warned that during the strikes, passengers could face “longer waiting times” and “potential operational bottlenecks.” In addition, travellers could face delays when checking in or dropping off their bags before departure, when at the boarding gate, and at the baggage carousels after landing in Mallorca, during the Swissport strikes.

In advice to holidaymakers set to travel to or from Palma, the airport advised the following:

• Check in online: Complete your check-in online before heading to the airport to minimise time spent in queues.
• Travel light if possible: Travelling with hand luggage only allows you to bypass potential check-in and baggage carousel delays.
• Monitor your airline’s app: Keep a close eye on text alerts or app notifications from your airline for real-time schedule updates.
• Arrive on time (but not too early): Stick to the standard arrival window recommended by your carrier (usually two to three hours before departure). Arriving half a day early can worsen airport congestion.

Palma Airport, also known as Son Sant Joan Airport, is one of the biggest Spanish airports, connecting Brits to the capital of Mallorca (Majorca), and beyond. In July last year, a whopping 1.8 million tourists travelled through Palma Airport in favour of that Spanish sun-soaked summer getaway.

The airport strikes planned for this week follow protests against overtourism in Palma on Sunday, 26 July. According to the police, around 25,000 people were involved, while the organisers, Menys Turisme, Mes Vida (Less Tourism, More Life), estimate that 70,000 took part in the protest.

For more information on the planned strikes during the summer, visit the Palma Airport website.

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

It is difficult to find words to express my disgust for the coming White House visit. Like the man they are going to see, the Dodgers are without honor.

Rico Gardiner
San Diego

Sports do not transcend or evade association with politics, especially in the current period of America’s decline under President Trump. It’s disgraceful that the Dodgers would again honor a rank authoritarian, a brazenly corrupt kleptocrat, criminal, malignant narcissist and wrecker of our democracy and rule of law.

Trump is not honoring the Dodgers; he’s using their presence to honor him and give him a bit more gaslight glory. The organization has smeared itself with the dishonor, serving the PR agenda of our vainglorious tyrant. If they cared about the optics, their civic duty and the good of the country, they would decline.

T.R. Jahns
Hemet

Dodgers, you are out. Out of our house. In normal times, a White House visit is a grand honor for a championship club. I get that. These are NOT normal times. For you to pretend they are and honor this man with your presence is unforgivable. Spineless. A statement that makes the wrong statement. We will not be watching or rooting for you this season. You are out at home. Our home.

William Lewis
Burbank

Ever since the Dodgers accepted their World Series visit to the White House, they’ve been error-prone on the field, and losing most games. In the All-Star Game, the players were hitless and the pitcher served up the only home run. To add more insult, their former player received the MVP award! Most importantly, is the disappointment and loss of respect from the fans. Karma has a way to haunt.

Robert Torres
Torrance

Your letters to the editor section regarding the Dodgers’ planned visit to the White House continues the left bias of the L.A. Times. Four letters were published praising the article and one was published critical of the article. I doubt that the 4-to-1 ratio reflects the opinions of the L.A. population, but it may reflect the opinions of readers that your left-leaning paper attracts. I read the paper only to see what the lefties are up to.

Larry Hart
Tarzana

July 13 (UPI) — The attorneys general of 12 states sued Monday to block the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., saying it would undermine competition in the entertainment industry.

A news release announcing the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James said Paramount Skydance Corp.’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. “would combine two of the five major film studios and two of the five major basic cable companies, creating a massive conglomerate in markets for basic cable and theatrical film releases.”

“For over a century, Paramount and Warner Bros. have competed to create movies and television that bring people together, inspire and sustain generations of artists, and help us understand the world,” James said. “This merger would destroy that competitions, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”

The release said the merger would increase costs for consumers and put jobs at risk.

The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department approved the planned merger, saying it doesn’t harm consumers in the United States.

Warner Bros. shareholders gave their blessing to the merger in April after Paramount offered to buy the company for $31 per share — a deal worth $110 billion.

Joining New York in the lawsuit were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

Deadline reported that Paramount could threaten to leave California in retaliation for the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the two companies as “behemoths” in the entertainment industry and said their merger would lead to higher prices, lower quality and less content for consumers.

“California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people’s first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state,” he said in a news release.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

Planned Parenthood and two smaller regional abortion providers are resuming billing Medicaid for services other than abortion after being cut off for most of a year.

The defunding, which was mandated in President Trump’s big tax and policy law last year, has been blamed in the closure of multiple clinics as well as a reduction in the number of Planned Parenthood patients being screened for breast cancer or tested for sexually transmitted infections.

The Medicaid billing was allowed to resume last weekend.

The restored funding does not mean the battle over federal abortion policy has ended, and not all services that were cut will return.

Here’s what to know about the situation.

Planned Parenthood closed clinics and saw fewer patients

Many abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, have struggled financially since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed state abortion bans to be enforced. Clinics have closed in states with abortion bans and restrictions as well as those without.

Planned Parenthood says its affiliates have closed nearly 30 of its roughly 600 clinics over the past year, citing the funding change as a key reason.

Over that period, affiliates dispensed about 25% fewer packs of birth control pills and conducted about 20% fewer breast cancer exams than the previous year.

Many patients — especially in places where healthcare can be hard to access — may not have had care at all because of the defunding, the organization said.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund spokesperson Angela Vasquez-Giroux said the cuts have also led to limited abortion access in some places.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin halted abortions for about a month, then dropped its status as an “essential community provider” so it could resume seeking reimbursement. The Arizona affiliate paused offering many of its services to patients covered by Medicaid.

Two smaller providers were also impacted

The defunding provision also affected two other healthcare providers that met the criteria in the law because the were nonprofit family planning organizations that provided abortion and received more than $800,000 yearly in Medicaid reimbursements.

Their experiences were very different.

Maine Family Planning closed three primary care clinics that served about 1,000 patients in the largely rural state.

Evelyn Kieltyka, a senior vice president of program services, said that even with help, their former patients had to wait an average of four to six months to be established with new providers.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions the group provided held steady, she said. Maine is one of several states where state-funded Medicaid covers abortion.

Patients at Health Imperatives in Massachusetts may not have noticed the change, as no services were dropped.

The state government funded Medicaid reimbursements that the federal government stopped — something that Planned Parenthood says happened in some form in 14 states. On top of that, the clinic system received a grant from Melinda Gates’s foundation.

Some services are returning but others may not

Planned Parenthood’s Arizona affiliate has already announced expanded hours and more telehealth options linked to the ability to bill Medicaid again.

Some other services are not likely to be restored.

Kieltyka said Maine Family Planning isn’t planning to bring back its primary care practices again.

“When you close something down and you lose positions,” she said, “it’s very difficult to bring that back and build it back up again.”

And Michelle Quesada, vice president of communications, brand and marketing for the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Florida, said a closed clinic in Lakeland isn’t expected to reopen, partly out of concern that Congress or the Trump administration could cut Medicaid reimbursements for the organization again.

“There’s no telling with this uncertainty,” she said. “It’s like a yo-yo effect.”

Abortion opponents want to stop the Medicaid reimbursements again

The political battle isn’t over.

Abortion opponents are pushing Congress to adopt another defunding policy.

“They’ve defunded Big Abortion before,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said Monday, “and they should do everything in their power to do it again.”

Planned Parenthood contends that most general election voters don’t want the organization to be defunded. Pritchard said that the Republican base does.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement officials disrupted “planned attacks” meant to target the UFC cage-fighting show staged at the White House this past weekend for President Trump’s birthday, and multiple people were in custody, FBI Director Kash Patel said on Tuesday.

The nature of the potential threat was not immediately disclosed, with additional details expected to be released once charges are unsealed later Tuesday.

Five people were arrested from states including Ohio, Missouri and California, said a law enforcement official familiar with the matter. The official spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss information that was not yet public.

The FBI learned about the possible threat on June 10, four days before the mixed martial arts extravaganza on the White House’s South Lawn, “and thanks to the rapid action of the FBI, our partners, and the Department of Justice in a multi-state operation, multiple individuals are now in custody and allegedly planned attacks were stopped cold,” Patel said in a post on X on Tuesday morning.

The Secret Service “worked around the clock to identify those responsible and hold them accountable,” Director Sean Curran said in a separate statement.

Trump, who celebrated his 80th birthday at the UFC event on Sunday, sought to tie the fights to larger celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Speaking to reporters Tuesday in Évian-les-Bains, France, where he was attending the Group of Seven summit, Trump said he had not been briefed on the thwarted plot.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville in Évian-les-Bains, France, contributed to this report.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County officials announced a new lawsuit against the Trump administration that aims to block a planned immigration facility near Gilroy.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. district court in San Jose, alleges that the leased land is zoned elusively for agricultural use and that the federal government violated laws requiring state and county notification, as well as procedural steps required before beginning construction.

The agency told the San José Spotlight that the project is an ICE office and denied that it would be a detention center. But state and local officials believe the facility will be used for short-term detention of up to 150 people at a time.

“The administration is trying to jam through a new facility on a community that does not want it, bulldozing over laws, shrouding their plans in secrecy and ignoring calls from the community to stop,” Bonta said during a news conference in San José, adding that it marks the 71st lawsuit filed by his office against the Trump administration.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit also argues that the property is in an area known to support several endangered and threatened species and that a facility there would strain the limited waste disposal and drinking water infrastructure.

Santa Clara County officials said they weren’t notified last year when the federal government, intending to build a facility for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leased nearly 25 acres of unincorporated land just outside of Gilroy. The parcel includes three buildings, greenhouses and a large agricultural field, according to the lawsuit.

Community members alerted the county about the forthcoming facility earlier this year and have protested the plans. Construction began early last month, according to the lawsuit.

The plot of land sits 3 miles southeast of the Gilroy Premium Outlets, at 7240 Holsclaw Road, federal procurement records show. The Department of Homeland Security secured a 20-year, $26.5-million lease from a subsidiary of the Beverly Hills-based Elmwood Capital Group, a real estate investment firm.

ICE also has a processing facility in nearby Morgan Hill.

According to the lawsuit, agricultural research companies that previously occupied the property generated hazardous waste that wasn’t properly disposed of.

“The federal government’s apparent failure to address — much less mitigate — these risks endanger the construction workers building the site, detainees and employees who will be located at the site, and the environment beneath and surrounding the site,” the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government’s only formal communication with the county regarding the project was a one-paragraph letter dated June 21, 2023, and forwarded by an Elmwood Capital representative. The letter said the federal government was planning “office and operations space” there and that it should be exempt from local zoning and planning review.

“Part of the problem here is that they are trying to move forward with this project with as little transparency as possible, and hoping that nobody notices, nobody catches on to the details,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “So, part of what our lawsuit will do is it will force that transparency to occur.”

ICE holding facilities have been the subject of multiple lawsuits since the start of the Trump administration over alleged overcrowding, poor conditions and confinement that went on for days and weeks.

Bonta and LoPresti said that the building of an ICE facility in Gilroy signals a desire by the federal government to increase enforcement in the area.

Advocates and local leaders have raised similar concerns in Dublin, another Bay Area city where federal officials are working to transfer ownership of a former prison. Congressional Democrats sent a letter earlier this month opposing the possibility that it could reopen as an immigrant detention facility.

Legal challenge claims US president did not seek proper approval for fighting event to be held on his 80th birthday.

A lawsuit is seeking to stop United States President Donald Trump from hosting an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match at the White House.

The lawsuit, lodged on behalf of two Virginia residents, is the first known legal challenge to the mixed martial arts event, which is set to be hosted on June 14.

The event will take place on Trump’s 80th birthday. It is also pegged to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which the US will commemorate on July 4 of this year.

The legal challenge filed on Saturday maintained that Trump did not receive proper authorisation to host the fight.

It argued that the event violated US National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, that Congress did not consent to the construction of a towering arch overlooking the event space, and that no environmental review was conducted before the construction.

“This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”

In a statement to the Associated Press, the White House dismissed the lawsuit as “obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory”.

The White House maintained the UFC fight was “no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year”.

Crews have been erecting an octagon-shaped fighting cage on the South Lawn of the White House, with Trump saying the project will include a “5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House”.

Attendance at the fight will be invite-only and closely monitored. The Military Times news site reported earlier this week that 1,200 service members given tickets to the event must meet certain waist-to-height ratio standards.

Public viewing areas will also be set up at the nearby Ellipse.

Trump has long been closely involved with both professional wrestling and UFC, with his casinos and event spaces hosting past events.

He regularly appeared as a version of himself in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) events throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. His current secretary of education, Linda McMahon, is a co-founder of the WWE.

Trump has more recently embraced UFC, which is currently owned by the same company, TKO Group Holdings, as the WWE.

UFC president Dana White has been a close ally of Trump’s.

Political analysts have credited Trump’s embrace of the sport with reaching disaffected male voters in the US, particularly during his 2024 election campaign.

May 21 (UPI) — SpaceX on Thursday scrubbed the planned first test flight for its redesigned Super Heavy megarocket, the largest rocket ever built, from its new Texas launch pad.

Following several delays of the countdown at 40 seconds remaining, SpaceX spokesman Dan Huot announced the launch would be delayed due to engineering issues which could not be immediately remedied.

“We are expecting to be able to make another flight attempt tomorrow, but obviously stay tuned to our social media,” he said.

In addition to trying out the redesigned Super Heavy propulsion system, the launch is meant to assess upgraded systems on Starship, including the deployment of 22 Starlink satellite simulators, intentionally stressing its new flight control flaps and attempting the “dynamic banking maneuver” that it eventually will use to land back on its pad.

When it takes off, the uncrewed mission will be the 12th flight for Starship as SpaceX develops what is expected to be a primary vehicle for NASA’s Artemis missions to the moon.

“The flight test’s primary goal will be to demonstrate each of these new pieces in the flight environment for the first time, with each element of the Starship architecture featuring significant redesigns to enable full and rapid reuse that incorporate learnings from years of development and testing,” SpaceX said on its website.

The V3, which is 408 feet tall and more powerful than previous Super Heavy rockets, includes 33 redesigned Raptor engines — Starship has six of its own — will take off from South Texas for a round of primary tests similar to previous launches.

The rocket, SpaceX said, is hoped to successfully launch, ascend, separate from the second stage — Starship — and then perform boostback and landing burns in the Gulf of Mexico.

“As this is the first flight test of a significantly redesigned vehicle, the booster will not attempt a return to the launch site for catch,” the company said.

During the hot-stage separation, Starship will light its engines to enter a sub-orbital path, performing tests and then splashing down in the Indian Ocean.

Tests of the space vessel are important as NASA’s Artemis III mission in 2028 is expected to test connecting the Orion crew capsule to both Starship and Blue Origin‘s Blue Moon, although Blue Moon has yet to be launched for its first test flight.

Starship also is expected to be the ship that delivers Americans back to the moon in the next several years.