Is global conflict good for business travel?

We explore the real impact on travel programmes and highlights how stronger policies, smarter tools and a renewed focus on duty of care can help businesses stay resilient in an unpredictable world.

Let’s be clear from the outset: asking whether global conflict is “good” for anything is a difficult and uncomfortable question. It’s a bit like asking whether a storm is good for infrastructure — it disrupts, it damages, it’s human and, it leaves behind challenges no one planned for, but everyone must address.

Conflict in any form brings uncertainty, disruption and human impact. It affects individuals, communities and economies in ways that are far-reaching and often deeply personal. That much is not in question. However, business — by its nature — tends to continue, even under strain. It may slow, adapt, or reroute, but it rarely stops entirely.

So, the question is not whether conflict benefits business travel, it does not. Rather, the more constructive question is: what can we learn when the operating environment becomes unpredictable and complex?

Because that is very much the reality today. In our experience, global business travel bookings have declined by approximately 19%, while flight costs have risen nearly 30%. This combination presents a significant challenge for organisations managing travel budgets and forecasting spend. Rising fuel costs — often accounting for up to 40% of a ticket price — are a key driver, creating immediate and unavoidable financial pressure.

Perception also plays a critical role. Regions that have traditionally been seen as stable and efficient travel hubs can quickly be viewed differently during periods of tension. However, history suggests reputational impacts are often temporary, with confidence gradually returning as conditions stabilise and attention shifts elsewhere.

Operationally, the aviation sector is already feeling the effects. Reports indicate a substantial portion of airline capacity in affected regions is underutilised, with some carriers announcing large-scale seat reductions. This is not a minor fluctuation; it represents a meaningful shift in supply and demand dynamics.

Amid this uncertainty, there are important developments worth noting. Organisations that have already implemented disciplined travel policies — achieving savings of up to 20% year-on-year — may see some of those gains eroded in the short term. However, the underlying structures remain valuable. These organisations are better positioned to respond, adjust and maintain control in a challenging environment. 

More importantly, duty of care has evolved from a compliance requirement into a core business priority. Knowing where employees are, understanding potential risks and being able to respond quickly is no longer optional, it’s fundamental to responsible travel management.

Encouragingly, the tools available to support this responsibility have advanced significantly. From real-time traveller tracking to integrated risk management platforms, organisations now have greater visibility and control than ever before. A well-supported travel programme enables companies to monitor and protect their people with precision and confidence.

That said, navigating this environment remains complex. Conditions can change quickly and the volume of information — not all of it reliable — can make decision-making more challenging. Clear processes, trusted data sources and experienced partners are therefore critical.

Nevertheless, periods of disruption, while difficult, often drive progress. They encourage stronger governance, more thoughtful decision-making and more resilient systems. They reinforce the idea that while business travel is all about people movement, it is also about doing it safely, responsibly and with full awareness of the broader context.

So no, global conflict is not good for business travel. It never has been and it never will be. But if organisations are required to operate within these conditions, there is value in learning, adapting and strengthening your approach.

Because failing to do so would mean facing the same challenges again, only less prepared.