Updated September 3, 2026
We've all been there. A cancelled flight normally means rebooking, refunds and potentially an expensive night at an airport hotel. Kalshi has introduced another possibility: trading on flight cancellations before they happen.
The prediction market operator moved into flight-cancellation markets in July, allowing users to take positions on how many flights will be cancelled or whether cancellation rates will cross certain thresholds. The concept creates an unusual potential use case for prediction markets: could travelers effectively hedge against the financial impact of a disrupted trip?
The idea has already produced controversy. Flight-tracking company FlightAware objected to Kalshi using its data and name to settle the markets, filed a federal lawsuit against the prediction market operator and then withdrew the case just one day later.
Kalshi files its flight-cancellation contracts with the CFTC, naming FlightAware as the primary settlement source.
FlightAware objects to the use of its data and says it did not authorize Kalshi to use its information for prediction markets.
FlightAware files a federal lawsuit against Kalshi over the use of its data, name and trademarks.
FlightAware voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice after just one day.
The dismissal becomes public; Kalshi's flight-cancellation market remains available with revised source wording.
Kalshi files its flight-cancellation contracts with the CFTC, naming FlightAware as the primary settlement source.
FlightAware objects to the use of its data and says it did not authorize Kalshi to use its information for prediction markets.
FlightAware files a federal lawsuit against Kalshi over the use of its data, name and trademarks.
FlightAware voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice after just one day.
The dismissal becomes public; Kalshi's flight-cancellation market remains available with revised source wording.
Kalshi submitted a new flight-cancellation contract structure to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on July 14.
The filing covers markets asking whether the percentage of scheduled flights cancelled at a particular airport during a set period will finish above, below, between, exactly at or at least a specified percentage. The CFTC currently lists the product as Certified.
In simple terms, imagine a market asking whether more than 10% of flights at an airport will be cancelled during a severe winter storm.
A trader who believes cancellations will exceed that level could buy the "Yes" side. Someone expecting operations to remain relatively normal could take the opposite position.
Kalshi's filing gives the contracts a $1 settlement value. It also says the contract structure is intended to allow members to match the size of positions to their economic risks.
That last part is important because it moves the concept beyond simply trying to predict what will happen.
It introduces the possibility of using the market as a hedge.
Potentially — but there is a major catch.
Suppose you are scheduled to fly from a major airport while a winter storm is approaching. A cancellation could leave you paying for another hotel night, extra transportation or other unexpected expenses.
If Kalshi offered an appropriate cancellation market, you could theoretically buy a position that becomes more valuable if disruption at the airport becomes severe.
If your trip goes smoothly, you may lose the money spent on the position.
If widespread cancellations hit, a winning position could offset some of the financial pain caused by the disruption.
But that does not make it the same thing as travel insurance.
Kalshi's airport contract is based on the overall percentage of scheduled flights cancelled at the airport — not whether your particular flight is cancelled.
Your flight could therefore be cancelled while the airport's overall cancellation rate remains below the threshold needed for your Kalshi position to win.
The opposite is also possible. You could successfully arrive at your destination while enough other flights are cancelled for the market to pay out.
In financial markets, this is essentially basis risk: the thing you are trying to protect yourself against and the instrument being used as the hedge are closely related, but they are not identical.
The more immediate controversy concerned how Kalshi determined the outcome of its markets.
Kalshi's July CFTC filing explicitly named FlightAware as the primary Source Agency for its airport cancellation contracts. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics was named as a secondary source if the primary source was unavailable or did not publish usable figures.
FlightAware said it had not authorized Kalshi to use its name, data or trademarks for that purpose.
On August 10, the company filed a lawsuit against Kalshi in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. FlightAware sought unspecified damages and court orders that would prevent Kalshi from using its data and name.
At the time, Kalshi also had a U.S. flight-cancellation market stating that its outcome would be verified using FlightAware.
And then the dispute took a strange turn.
On August 11, FlightAware voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.
That distinction matters. A dismissal without prejudice does not necessarily prevent FlightAware from bringing the claims again in the future.
Neither FlightAware nor Kalshi publicly explained the abrupt withdrawal when contacted by Reuters.
Kalshi's flight-cancellation market remained available after the case was dismissed, but its wording changed.
Instead of directly saying that the outcome was verified by FlightAware, the market referred to a "Primary Source Agency." The link still directed users to FlightAware's website, while an accompanying disclaimer stated that the market had not been endorsed by the source agency or its affiliates.
For now, the lawsuit is over.
The underlying issue is considerably less settled.
Editor's notes
“The possibility of hedging against a cancelled flight is of course interesting, and seems harmless at first. But it also creates a potential problem: individuals could benefit financially from cancellations. Not to make light of the subject, but one reference that comes to mind is the Seinfeld episode where Kramer bets on flight arrivals while Jerry is caught up in the delays.”
Flight cancellations are not completely outside human control.
Airline employees, airport operators, air traffic personnel and other parties can potentially possess information about disruptions before the wider public knows about them. In some circumstances, people involved in aviation operations could also have some ability to influence what happens.
Kalshi appears to have anticipated that problem.
Its CFTC filing specifically prohibits certain airport employees, airline personnel, critical service providers, government officials with relevant airport responsibilities and Source Agency employees from trading when their duties relate to flight operations or when they possess material nonpublic information.
Certain labor officials and household members of prohibited individuals are also covered by the restrictions.
Those rules illustrate one of the challenges prediction markets face as they expand into increasingly specific real-world events.
The more directly a market is connected to an event that people can influence, the more important questions around information, manipulation and market integrity become.
Additionally, Kalshi's rules also contain safeguards against deliberate manipulation. If sabotage, intentional disruption, malicious cyber activity or certain other "Excluded Events" determine the outcome, the contract does not settle normally based on the resulting cancellation rate. Instead, Kalshi can settle it using the last fair price under its market-review rules.
The amount of money traded on flight cancellations may ultimately be less important than what these contracts represent.
Prediction markets became widely known through elections and have expanded heavily into sports, politics, economics and breaking news.
Flight cancellations point toward something different: using an event contract to manage an everyday financial risk.
Weather is another obvious example. So are energy prices, economic releases and other events that can directly affect businesses and individuals.
Kalshi has previously promoted the idea that event markets can be used for risk management, and its flight contract explicitly refers to members matching positions to their economic exposure.
Whether ordinary travelers will actually start buying prediction contracts before heading to the airport is another question entirely.
The FlightAware dispute also demonstrates an obstacle that will become increasingly important if this type of market expands: prediction markets need reliable sources to determine what actually happened.
And those sources may not always want their data used that way.
FlightAware's lawsuit disappeared after only a day, but the questions behind it remain.
For Kalshi and the wider prediction-market industry, the humble cancelled flight could prove to be an unexpectedly important test of whether event contracts can evolve from something people use to predict the future into something they use to protect themselves from it.