Heathrow Airport should have stayed operational post-fire, but faced extensive disruptions and criticism over crisis management and power dependency.

In Short

Heathrow Airport could have stayed open despite a nearby electrical substation fire that caused 1,300 flight cancellations. Both Heathrow and the UK government have launched investigations, while airline stocks fell due to concerns over financial impacts.

Heathrow Airport may have remained open on Friday despite a fire at a nearby electrical substation, according to Britain’s National Grid.

The London airport had previously closed due to the fire affecting its power supply. National Grid’s CEO, John Pettigrew, stated that although one substation was damaged, two others provided sufficient power to ensure operations could continue.

Heathrow officials, however, argued that a safe restart of operations was not feasible after such a major disruption. They emphasised the complexity of the airport’s systems, which required careful management during the downtime.

Alternative options

Heathrow’s CEO, Thomas Woldbye, highlighted that while alternative substations existed, switching them on was time-consuming. He pointed out that the fire occurred outside of Heathrow’s control and required significant response efforts from the airport.

An internal investigation has been initiated by Heathrow, with the UK government also planning a separate inquiry into the incident. The disruption caused around 1,300 flight cancellations or diversions, leading to substantial financial implications for airlines.

In the aftermath, airline stocks faced a decline in value, reflecting investor concerns about the incident’s impact on travel and revenue. The International Air Transport Association criticized Heathrow’s emergency response, questioning the airport’s reliance on a single power source.

Trump’s trade war could raise Australian medicine costs and limit availability, complicating PBS negotiations and tariff impacts.

In Short

Concerns arise in Australia over a US-Australia trade dispute affecting medicine costs and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Potential US tariffs could raise drug prices and impact access, despite the US arguing for higher prices to reflect drug development costs.

Talks of a trade dispute between the US and Australia regarding medicine costs have raised concerns among Australians.

The potential impact on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and tariffs on Australian drugs entering the US raises questions about drug prices and availability.

The PBS offers subsidised medicines, maintaining low out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Drug companies must submit evidence to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which assesses the cost-effectiveness of drugs.

Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs could prompt a rise in medicine prices or lead to shortages. Price negotiations occur between the government and drug companies, with consumers paying a fixed co-payment regardless of the drug’s cost to the government.

The US argues the PBS undervalues innovative drugs, seeking higher prices that reflect development costs. However, the PBAC aims to keep prices low, benefiting consumers.

Tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals exported to the US could hike prices and reduce demand for Australian-made drugs, although most medicines in Australia are sourced overseas.

Even if Australia retaliated with tariffs on US pharmaceuticals, it would likely harm access to innovative drugs and lead to increased negotiation restrictions.

While the trade negotiations’ outcome remains uncertain, it is unlikely the US can significantly influence Australian pharmaceutical pricing, especially with anticipated reductions in consumer drug costs.

Trump signs executive order to dismantle Department of Education, triggering concerns over impact on American education system.

In Short

President Trump has signed an executive order to start closing the Department of Education, stating education should be managed at the state level.

The decision has raised concerns among education advocates about the potential negative impact on federal education programs and student access.

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to begin the process of closing the Department of Education.

This move aligns with his ongoing campaign promise, although specific details were not provided at the signing ceremony.

The order follows a recent announcement from the department about plans to reduce its workforce significantly, raising concerns about the future of numerous federal education programs.

During the signing ceremony, Trump stated that education should be managed at the state level. He assured that critical funding for low-income schools, special needs students, and Pell Grants would be maintained and redistributed to other agencies.

Trump explained the urgency of dismantling the department, asserting that it is not beneficial to the American education system.

In response to this decision, education advocates expressed strong concerns, warning that abolishing the department could disrupt the education system and negatively affect students.

They argue that without federal oversight, college access could decline, student loan defaults could rise, and unscrupulous institutions could exploit students.