American Express Travel President Talks About the Post-Pandemic Vacation Boom

Audrey Hendley, as the president of American Express Travel, is attuned to how trips have evolved in recent years and what vacationers are seeking on those getaways.

The organisation is one of the largest travel and lifestyle networks in the world and spans 7,000 travel consultants in 23 countries. Its global footprint includes 1,400 lounges in 140 countries and more than 1,500 properties in its collection of Fine Hotels + Resorts.

Business at American Express Travel is bouncing back from the pandemic slump: In the second quarter of this year, bookings through the network across 138 million American Express cards that are currently in use reached pre-Covid levels.

Hendley, who lives in Westchester, New York, speaks to Penta about the most in-demand travel destinations, the new movement of traveling with a purpose, and her top advice for maximising any trip.

Penta: What are some travel trends you’re seeing this year?

Audrey Hendley: We have seen a notable shift in people’s interests driving travel decisions. Travellers are booking “set-jetting” trips that are inspired by shows like The White Lotus and Emily in Paris because they are increasingly inspired by pop culture.

Food also continues to impact booking decisions, with people building entire trips around reservations at incredible restaurants like Noma in Copenhagen or blocking off afternoons to do a taco tour in Mexico City. Travel has become less about the “where” and more about the “why.”

Which destinations are the most popular and what’s up and coming?

We put out a Trending Destinations list every year that highlights the places our card members are traveling to; 2023 is a mix of perennial favorites like Paris and the Florida Key, and some lesser-known destinations like Woodstock, Vermont, and Montenegro. While people are still revisiting the cities they love, we are also seeing an increase in trips to places that are off the beaten path. And as borders have opened post-pandemic, we’re seeing more trips being booked to places like Asia and Australia.

How do you think the rising cost of travel will impact decisions in 2023?

Our 2023 Global Travel Trends Report found that 80% of travellers would rather take a dream vacation than purchase a new luxury item. Our values have fundamentally shifted since the pandemic, and now, people want meaning in everything they do—travel included. They’re more purposeful.

Pre-pandemic, travel was about checking off a list of destinations you wanted to see. Now, it’s about really exploring and seeing a place in depth. Travellers will go to fewer places but see more where they do go. And they’re willing to spend on experiences and memories—what better way to create those things than travel?

How are younger generations shepherding the travel trends that we are seeing today?

As they continue to gain independence and financial freedom, millennial and Gen Z travelers are putting their stamp on modern travel trends. They want experiences, especially ones that look good in photos on social media. We are also seeing that they are extremely conscious of the impact their trips have on the environment and the communities they visit. They are pushing the industry to be more purposeful—they want hotels that prioritise sustainability, support local economies by employing locals, and value inclusion and diversity.

Can you speak to the hallmark of a great hotel and a great hotel stay?

It’s a property that knows you when you’re there. The staff addresses you by name and makes you feel at home. They offer exceptional service, a luxury that’s relaxed and infuses your stay with personal touches. I was in Paris on a recent work trip, for example, and stayed at the Maison Delano, one of the newest properties in the city. I walked into my room and found a charger that worked in France waiting for me as a welcome gift. It was such a simple gesture but meant so much on a work trip.

The Centurion Lounge Network has been regarded as one of the most luxurious airport lounge experiences. What sets it apart from other airport lounges?

I think it’s the quality of the product. We try to offer elevated food and local flavors. The lounge at San Francisco Airport, for example, features wines from nearby Napa Valley, and in Seattle, home to a big coffee culture, we have a coffee and espresso bar. With cuisine, we try to use chefs from that location to create menus, and they’re all different by location. We also try to use as many local producers as possible.

In addition, we offer high-touch services like chair massages and manicures in some lounges.

As a globetrotter yourself, what are some of your best travel tips?

I like to travel like a local, especially to touristy destinations. I always look for the small shops and restaurants that give me the true flavour of a destination rather than the big names where all the tourists go.

I also enjoy visiting popular destinations during the so-called off-peak season. I was in Venice [Italy] in February where the weather was glorious, and there weren’t nearly as many crowds as there are during the summer.

On business trips, I love carving out some personal time to balance the intensity of long workdays. I also start the day with some form of exercise whether it’s a run or jog—this also gives me an opportunity to see the destination.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

American Express Travel President Talks About the Post-Pandemic Vacation Boom

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.