Europe’s plan to revolutionise air travel through mandatory use of green fuels has drawn a blistering rebuke from the world’s largest airline group, which warns that Brussels’ climate ambitions risk doing more harm than good.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), representing nearly 300 carriers globally, has accused the European Union of pushing an “environmentally inefficient” and “economically unsustainable” policy by enforcing the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) — a class of biofuels and synthetic fuels promoted as low-carbon alternatives to traditional jet fuel.
Under new EU regulations set to come into force in 2025, all aircraft refuelling at EU airports will be required to blend a fixed percentage of SAF into their tanks. While policymakers have hailed the move as a critical step towards net zero aviation, IATA says the figures simply don’t stack up.
According to IATA’s latest analysis, SAF is expected to meet just 0.7% of fuel demand across Europe in 2025, far below the levels required for significant emissions reductions. Worse, the group claims, most of that fuel will be imported from outside the bloc — raising questions over both the environmental footprint of its supply chain and the EU’s growing dependency on external producers.
“This is not about resisting climate action,” said Willie Walsh, Director General of IATA and former CEO of British Airways. “It’s about resisting poor regulation. The EU’s SAF mandate, as it stands, will drive up costs for consumers, create supply monopolies, and do very little to reduce overall emissions.”
The EU’s SAF targets — part of its flagship “ReFuelEU Aviation” programme — require a minimum of 2% SAF use by 2025, rising steadily to 70% by 2050. Yet production remains nascent and costly, with SAF currently priced at three to five times more than conventional kerosene. The result, IATA argues, will be a surge in airfares, increased carbon leakage, and growing reliance on a handful of producers capable of meeting EU criteria.
“The numbers are clear,” said Walsh. “You can mandate SAF all you like, but if it doesn’t exist in sufficient quantities, or if it only comes from one or two overpriced suppliers, all you’re really mandating is disruption.”
Critics say the Commission’s policy risks entrenching a two-tier aviation economy in which European carriers — already struggling under carbon taxes and airspace constraints — are put at a disadvantage against non-EU rivals. Budget airlines, which operate on razor-thin margins, are expected to be hit hardest, with ticket prices likely to rise to offset fuel surcharges.
“The irony is that this will encourage passengers to fly through hubs outside the EU — Istanbul, Doha, Dubai — where SAF mandates don’t exist and fuel is cheaper,” said one senior airline executive. “We’re undermining our own competitiveness while failing to make a meaningful dent in global emissions.”
Even environmentalists have raised eyebrows. While SAF is widely seen as essential to long-haul decarbonisation — given the limits of battery-powered or hydrogen aircraft — many worry that rushed mandates will incentivise poor-quality fuel production, unsustainable land use, or carbon-intensive shipping of biofuels across oceans.
“The Commission has put the cart before the horse,” said a spokesperson from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). “Without robust sustainability standards and domestic supply chains, we risk solving one problem while creating another.”
There are also fears of a de facto monopoly. At present, only a handful of refineries globally are certified to produce SAF to EU specifications, and industry insiders suggest that limited competition could open the door to price gouging — especially in the early years of the mandate.
“This isn’t a functioning market yet,” said a source close to the European airline lobby. “It’s a regulatory obligation with almost no supply-side flexibility. That’s a recipe for spiralling costs.”
For its part, the European Commission has defended the SAF mandate as a vital pillar of the EU Green Deal and part of its wider push to decarbonise transport by mid-century. A spokesperson said: “SAF is the only viable low-carbon fuel for long-haul aviation in the coming decades. This regulation sends a clear signal to investors and producers to scale up supply and drive innovation.”
But scaling up supply is easier said than done. SAF requires complex production processes — either via waste oils and fats or, in the case of synthetic fuels, via energy-intensive chemical synthesis using green hydrogen and captured CO₂. Europe currently lacks the industrial base to meet its own demand, let alone drive global uptake.
In the UK, ministers have adopted a more cautious approach, with voluntary SAF targets and a focus on domestic production incentives. Even so, British airlines have echoed their continental counterparts’ concerns, urging the Government to avoid “jumping the gun” before a reliable supply chain is in place.
Meanwhile, passengers are likely to be the ones footing the bill. Industry projections suggest that the cost of long-haul flights departing the EU could rise by as much as 12% within the first two years of the mandate — potentially undermining efforts to restore post-pandemic passenger volumes.
To its credit, IATA has long supported SAF as a pathway to net zero aviation, pledging to reach 65% SAF usage by 2050. But it insists that mandates alone are not enough — governments must also incentivise production, streamline certification, and avoid policies that punish carriers before solutions are scalable.
As the clock ticks towards 2025, it is clear that the skies above Europe are about to become a battleground not only for emissions targets, but for economic realism and regulatory sanity. And for many in the airline industry, the view from the cockpit is already clouded.
