Les carburants durables pour l’aviation (SAF) sont un objectif louable pour les décideurs politiques, mais la promotion des SAF devrait dépasser les frontières et favoriser la collaboration entre les nations, les régulateurs et les autres parties prenantes.

Dans leur quête d’un ciel plus vert, les régulateurs du monde entier s’efforcent de rendre les carburants d’aviation plus durables. L’Union européenne a pris les devants avec sa législation « ReFuelEU », qui impose une augmentation progressive de l’utilisation de carburants aéronautiques durables (SAF). Cependant, le chemin vers l’aviation durable n’est pas sans obstacles, car les SAF restent actuellement trois à quatre fois plus chers que le kérosène conventionnel. De plus, l’augmentation potentielle des prix à la consommation ajoute une nouvelle couche de complexité à un débat déjà épineux.

En novembre 2023, le Conseil de l’UE a adopté l’initiative « ReFuelEU aviation », un élément clé du paquet « Fit for 55 », qui vise à réduire l’empreinte carbone du secteur de l’aviation. La législation impose aux fournisseurs de carburant d’aviation d’inclure une part minimale de carburants aéronautiques durables dans leurs produits, en commençant par 2% en 2025 et en atteignant 70% d’ici 2050. Les carburants synthétiques sont également obligatoires, avec une part progressivement croissante. La loi vise à aligner le transport aérien sur les objectifs climatiques de l’UE, en s’attaquant aux problèmes de faible approvisionnement et de prix élevés qui entravent le développement des carburants aéronautiques durables. Le règlement est entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2024, certaines dispositions étant applicables à partir de 2025.

La nécessité d’adopter une approche globale plutôt que de succomber à des mesures protectionnistes est une préoccupation majeure dans ce discours. La promotion des SAF devrait dépasser les frontières et favoriser la collaboration entre les nations, les régulateurs et les autres parties prenantes. Alors que l’UE s’efforce de mettre en place des normes strictes, elle doit également surmonter ses réticences historiques et adopter la neutralité technologique.

Un aspect notable de ce défi est le rôle des SAF dérivés de l’huile de palme, en particulier en Asie du Sud-Est. La position protectionniste de l’UE à l’égard des biocarburants provenant de cette région doit être reconsidérée. Les dérivés de l’huile de palme, tels que les effluents des moulins à huile de palme (POME) et le distillat d’acides gras de l’huile de palme (PFAD), constituent une matière première viable pour les SAF dans le cadre de l’économie circulaire.

Les exportateurs d’Asie du Sud-Est et d’Afrique de l’Ouest ont la possibilité de réduire les émissions de l’aviation en fournissant un approvisionnement régulier de ces déchets.

Cependant, un paradoxe émerge lorsque l’on considère que les mêmes voix qui plaident pour l’élimination progressive des combustibles fossiles se sont historiquement opposées à l’utilisation de l’huile de palme. L’approche de l’UE à l’égard de l’huile de palme en tant que matière première pour les SAF semble contradictoire et souligne la nécessité d’une stratégie plus nuancée et plus cohérente. Pour assurer le succès des SAF, les décideurs politiques doivent concilier les objectifs environnementaux et le potentiel des matières premières innovantes.

En établissant un parallèle avec la politique énergétique de l’Allemagne qui, dans son empressement à décarboniser et à dénucléariser, a eu des conséquences inattendues telles qu’une augmentation de l’utilisation du charbon et une hausse des prix de l’électricité, l’UE doit faire preuve de prudence. Il est essentiel de trouver le bon équilibre, pour que les objectifs de durabilité n’entraînent pas, par inadvertance, des résultats économiques et environnementaux négatifs.

Le paysage mondial complique encore les choses, les différents pays adoptant leurs propres approches. Le « Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate » du Royaume-Uni et la « Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap » des Etats-Unis illustrent la diversité des stratégies. Il n’en reste pas moins que l’harmonisation des normes est essentielle pour que les SAF soient largement acceptés.

Les cadres réglementaires de l’UE, du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis soulignent la complexité de la question. Les critères de définition d’une SAF sont au coeur du débat, et les différences de normes et de certifications compliquent les efforts déployés au niveau mondial en faveur de la durabilité.

Le chemin vers des carburants d’aviation abordables et durables exige un effort collaboratif et mondial. L’UE doit abandonner toute vision protectionniste des SAF dérivés de l’huile de palme et adopter une approche plus équilibrée. Alors que l’industrie aéronautique progresse à grands pas vers un avenir plus vert, les décideurs politiques, les régulateurs et les militants doivent se débarrasser des vieux mantras et privilégier les solutions pragmatiques aux débats idéologiques. Si les carburéacteurs durables doivent un jour devenir une alternative économiquement viable pour le marché de masse, des approches intelligentes et pragmatiques sont nécessaires.

Originally published here

In the global search for greener pastures, regulators worldwide are grappling with the challenge of making aviation fuels more sustainable. The European Union has taken a leading role and introduced legislation known as ReFuelEU, which mandates a gradual increase in the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). The journey towards sustainable aviation faces obstacles, notably the current cost of SAFs, which remains more than twice the amount of traditional kerosene. However, price is not the only barrier to making our airplanes greener.

In a recent development, the Department for Transport has committed to introducing a revenue certainty mechanism to support SAF production and boost its uptake. This initiative aims to provide producers with greater assurance about earnings from the SAF they produce. The UK’s SAF program, already one of the most comprehensive globally, is set to benefit from this scheme, coupled with the introduction of a SAF mandate in 2025.

A global approach which avoids protectionism is vital to the SAF revolution. The promotion of SAFs should extend beyond borders and encourage collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders. While the EU advocates for stringent standards, it must overcome historical reservations and embrace technology neutrality.

A significant dimension of this challenge is the role of palm oil-derived SAFs, particularly in Southeast Asia. The EU has traditionally taken a protectionist stance on biofuels from this region, and has banned the use of palm oil in the production of SAFs, a move which has been met with protests from Malaysia and Indonesia. Although well-intentioned, they must reconsider this position. Derivatives like Palm Oil Mill Effluent and Palm Oil Fatty Acid Distillate offer a viable feedstock for SAFs, and Southeast Asian and West African exporters can potentially reduce aviation emissions by supplying these waste products consistently.

A paradox arises when you consider that the same voices calling for the abolition of fossil fuels have historically opposed the use of palm oil. The EU’s approach to palm oil then appears contradictory and emphases the need for a more nuanced and coherent strategy. For SAFs to thrive, policymakers must reconcile environmental objectives with the potential of innovative feedstocks.

Drawing parallels with Germany’s energy policy, which inadvertently increased coal usage and electricity prices in its fervor to decarbonise and denuclearise, the EU must exercise caution. Striking the right balance is crucial to ensure that sustainability goals do not unintentionally result in adverse economic and environmental outcomes.

The global landscape further complicates matters, with various countries adopting their own approaches. The UK’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate and the US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap exemplify diverse strategies. However, the harmonisation of standards will prove essential for the widespread acceptance of SAFs.

The regulatory frameworks in the EU and the UK underline the issue’s complexity. The criteria for defining SAFs are also central to the debate, with differing standards and certifications complicating the global push for sustainability.

Fundamentally, the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must relinquish any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and adopt a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry flies toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. Smart and pragmatic approaches are imperative to making sustainable jet fuels a viable mass-market alternative.

Originally published here

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) are a commendable aim for policymakers, however the push for SAFs should transcend borders, fostering collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders.

In the pursuit of greener skies, regulators worldwide are grappling with the challenge of making aviation fuels more sustainable. The European Union (EU) has taken the lead with its ReFuelEU legislation, mandating a gradual increase in the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). However, the path to sustainable aviation is not without hurdles, as SAFs currently remain three to four times more expensive than conventional kerosene. Moreover, the potential increase in consumer prices adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate debate.

In November 2023 the EU Council adopted the ‘ReFuelEU aviation’ initiative, a key component of the ‘Fit for 55’ package, aimed at reducing the aviation sector’s carbon footprint. The legislation mandates aviation fuel suppliers to include a minimum share of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) in their products, starting at 2% in 2025 and reaching 70% by 2050. Synthetic fuels are also required, with a progressively increasing share. The law aims to align air transport with EU climate targets, addressing issues of low supply and high prices hindering SAF development. The regulation is set to enter into force on January 1, 2024, with certain provisions applicable from 2025.

A key concern in this discourse is the need for a global approach rather than succumbing to protectionist measures. The push for SAFs should transcend borders, fostering collaboration among nations, regulators, and other stakeholders. As the EU pushes for stringent standards, it must also overcome historical reservations and embrace technology neutrality.

One notable aspect of this challenge is the role of palm oil-derived SAFs, particularly in Southeast Asia. The EU’s protectionist stance on biofuels from this region needs reconsideration. Palm oil derivatives, such as Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) and Palm Oil Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD), present a viable circular-economy feedstock for SAFs. South-East Asian and West African exporters have the potential to reduce aviation emissions by providing a consistent supply of these waste products.

However, a paradox emerges when we consider that the same voices advocating for the phase-out of fossil fuels have historically opposed the use of palm oil. The EU’s approach to palm oil as a feedstock for SAFs appears contradictory and highlights the need for a more nuanced and coherent strategy. If SAFs are to succeed, policymakers must reconcile environmental objectives with the potential of innovative feedstocks.

Drawing a parallel with Germany’s energy policy, which, in its zeal to decarbonize and denuclearize, led to unintended consequences like increased coal usage and higher electricity prices, the EU must exercise caution. Striking the right balance is crucial, ensuring that sustainability goals do not inadvertently result in adverse economic and environmental outcomes.

The global landscape further complicates matters, with various countries adopting their own approaches. The UK’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate and the US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap showcase diverse strategies. Still, harmonization of standards is essential for the widespread acceptance of SAFs.

The regulatory frameworks in the EU, UK, and the US underscore the complexity of the issue. The criteria for what constitutes a SAF are central to the debate, with differing standards and certifications complicating the global push for sustainability.

In conclusion, the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must abandon any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and embrace a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry takes strides toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. If sustainable jet fuels should ever become an economically viable mass-market alternative, smart and pragmatic approaches are needed.

Originally published here

It’s not a great time to fly. According to the consumer price index for airfare, ticket prices are at an all-time high after jumping 25% this summer. Airlines are grappling with fuel price hikes (up 150%), staffing shortages, increases in labor expenses (up 19%), and burdensome debt accrued during the pandemic — all of which have a negative spillover effect on price points for passengers.

Although demand for air travel has come back strong, airlines are finding it difficult to meet the needs of consumers when it comes to flight costs and destination spots. Removing any unnecessary added expense or barrier to flying is more important now than ever.

Consumers should have access to the airports most conducive to their pocketbooks and travel plans, and it is for these reasons that the Direct Capital Access Act is being proposed for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

DCA is the only airport that is required to abide by what’s known as the “perimeter rule,” which limits inbound and outbound nonstop flights to a 1,250-mile radius. DCA must also adhere to a “slot rule,” which only two other airports, LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport, must follow. The slot rule requires flights to have a reservation for takeoff or landing, and “slots” at DCA are capped at just 60 per hour. 

The Direct Capital Access Act aims to eliminate these rules, and below are some considerations for why.

Irrelevant rules

DCA has been operating since 1941, and in those early years, both the perimeter and slot rules made perfect sense. Airplanes required more runway space, they had significantly longer takeoff and landing times, and the noise was of concern to surrounding neighborhoods. That’s in part why Dulles International Airport was established in 1962, to alleviate air traffic to DCA and accommodate international aircraft flying greater distances.

Throughout the 1960s, the perimeter and slot rules for DCA served a purpose from an operational standpoint and had the added benefit of helping to develop a market for the newly established Dulles option.

Times change, and so has the business of air travel. According to a recent analysis by the American Action Forum, density concerns and flight capabilities have evolved and improved dramatically since then, so consumers should be able to capitalize on these advancements.

Passenger preference

Instead of being able to fly into DCA, many consumers must fly to Dulles or Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport and spend extra time and expense for ground transport to get to where they really want to go. As for those able to secure a DCA direct flight, upfront costs for tickets are high due to supply and demand pressures.

The added expense for DCA, however, is competitively countered by airport convenience. DCA offers quick and easy access to ground transportation from the gates and is in an optimal location for heading to Capitol Hill or downtown Washington. Yet only those with the financial means to do so can take advantage of the benefits of DCA has to offer.

Airline arguments

Removing the perimeter and slot rules for DCA is not only of interest to consumers but also to airlines. Delta Air Lines is a proponent of the bill, asserting that it would meet the needs of consumers, and other advocates for the bill claim it would increase competition, reduce ticket costs, and generate new job opportunities for the metropolitan region.

In opposition to Delta’s stance is United Airlines. United has a vested interest in passengers being directed to Dulles because it unofficially owns that airport. Dulles is referred to as a “fortress hub” for United flights since United controls 70% of the gates.

Not to be left out of the DCA debate is American Airlines. American has preestablished designated slots at DCA, and given that there is a “use it or lose it” approach to reservations, some of American’s connecting flights are routed to DCA simply to safeguard slots.

If the slot and perimeter rules were to be removed, it is likely that passengers flying into DCA would actually be staying in the metropolitan region and flight patterns could be used more efficiently.

As rightly noted by Stephen Kent at the Consumer Choice Center, “Travel can be stressful enough as it is for consumers without artificially imposed barriers to efficiency and competition in the Washington, D.C. market.”

Washington, D.C., is the most expensive location for domestic flights. By removing the pernicious perimeter rule, consumers could save substantially on flight costs, and by scrapping the slot rule, our nation’s capital could become a more accessible destination rather than a pit stop for connecting flights.

We’ve come a long way since the first flight in 1903, and if aircraft can advance as rapidly as it has, so too should the operations and stipulations of the airports that serve those taking to the skies.

Originally published here

La compagnie aérienne a interpellé la Commission européenne pour que les contrôleurs aériens français suivent les mêmes règles que leurs collègues d’ailleurs en Europe.

La compagnie aérienne à bas prix RyanAir a récemment présenté à la Commission européenne une pétition de plus d’un million de signatures, dans laquelle elle plaide pour un traitement équitable par le contrôle aérien français.

Au début de l’année, les contrôleurs aériens français ont été en grève pendant une longue période, multipliant par 10 le nombre total de jours de grève de l’année précédente. Instinctivement, on pourrait penser qu’une grève des contrôleurs aériens affecte tous les vols de la même manière, mais ce n’est pas le cas.

Une forme de protectionnisme

Alors que de nombreux vols traversant l’espace aérien français doivent être annulés, les règles protégeant le service minimum des compagnies aériennes au départ de la France permettent à ces opérateurs de décoller et d’atterrir. Ainsi, alors que la compagnie irlandaise a dû annuler 4 000 vols, Air France et ses filiales sont beaucoup moins touchées.

Dans un communiqué de presse, le directeur général de RyanAir, Michael O’Leary, présentait ses arguments :

« A peine 10 semaines après le lancement de notre pétition […], nous avons remis plus de 1,1 million de signatures de citoyens européens fatigués appelant la Commission européenne d’Ursula von der Leyen à protéger les survols lors des grèves répétées de l’ATC. 

Il est inacceptable que des grèves ATC puissent entraîner l’annulation de milliers de vols de passagers européens, alors que la France et d’autres Etats membres de l’UE utilisent des lois sur le service minimum pour protéger leurs vols intérieurs. Les passagers européens en ont assez de subir des annulations de survol inutiles pendant les grèves de l’ATC. 

La Commission européenne doit maintenant donner suite à la pétition de plus de 1,1 million de citoyens européens et insister pour que tous les Etats protègent les survols pendant les grèves nationales de l’ATC, comme cela se fait déjà en Grèce, en Italie et en Espagne. »

Le fait que RyanAir se soit tournée à la fois vers la Commission européenne et vers sa propre clientèle est un signe fort que, d’une part, ils s’alignent sur les intérêts des consommateurs, en particulier pendant la période des fêtes, et que, d’autre part, l’approche française consistant à prévoir des exceptions spécifiques pour ses propres industries s’apparente à du protectionnisme.

Un problème européen

Outre l’argument de la discrimination spécifique du marché, la législation française sur le service minimum pourrait devenir la cible de Bruxelles pour la simple raison pratique que la France est trop centrale et trop grande. Voler du Portugal vers l’Allemagne sans traverser l’espace aérien français ajoute des heures de vol à l’horloge. Cela signifie : plus de kérosène, plus d’heures de travail pour le personnel, et aussi des litiges potentiels avec les consommateurs qui ont réservé un temps de vol plus court au départ.

Certains sénateurs se sont efforcés de résoudre ce problème en proposant d’aligner les règles de grève des contrôleurs aériens sur celles de toutes les autres juridictions européennes, notamment en prévoyant qu’ils devront notifier leur participation à une grève 48 heures à l’avance. Cette mesure aiderait les aéroports à atténuer les perturbations. Actuellement, les aéroports ne savent pas combien de contrôleurs aériens vont se mettre en grève et annulent souvent plus de vols que nécessaire – environ 30%, en moyenne, chaque jour de grève.

« Quelque 12 Mds€ ont été perdus à cause des blocages », « la France [étant] à l’origine de 97% de perturbations aériennes au sein de l’Union européenne », affirme le sénateur Vincent Capo-Canellas, qui a déposé cette proposition de loi. Avec 97%, il ne s’agit pas seulement d’un problème interne que la France doit résoudre, mais d’un problème européen. Il est inadmissible que les passagers européens soient pris en otage par la suffisance de contrôleurs aériens qui n’ont même pas la décence d’annoncer leur intention de grève.

Existe-t-il un scénario justifié dans lequel les travailleurs peuvent revendiquer de meilleures conditions dans le cadre de la loi ? Certainement. Cependant, leur profession doit également s’accompagner d’un certain ensemble d’éthique, de compréhension et d’utilité, raison pour laquelle beaucoup d’entre eux l’ont choisie en premier lieu. C’est pourquoi le législateur français devrait durcir les règles relatives aux conditions des préavis.

La Commission européenne devrait également protéger des conditions de marché équitables au sein de l’Union européenne en n’établissant pas de discrimination entre les opérateurs. Manifestement, le système français ne discrimine pas per se RyanAir parce qu’il s’agit d’une compagnie étrangère, puisque les vols des compagnies étrangères au départ de la France sont aussi peu affectés que ceux d’Air France.

Cependant, les compagnies aériennes françaises bénéficient d’un avantage comparatif : au lieu d’effectuer le vol Amsterdam-Madrid en passant par la France – un vol qui risque d’être annulé en cas de grève des contrôleurs aériens – les passagers peuvent choisir de prendre une correspondance dans un aéroport français avec une compagnie aérienne française pour éviter les tracas. C’est pourquoi la Commission devrait exiger des conditions de concurrence équitables pour le service minimum.

Originally published here

President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg have announced plans that would require airlines to pay compensation to passengers in case of flight disruptions that are within the purview of the airline. The move echoes legislation that has existed in the European Union for almost two decades.

In principle, delay compensation sounds good. If an airline fails to make you arrive on time at your destination out of its own incompetence, compensation will make up for the lost time and incentivize the company to do better in the future. Exemptions such as bad weather conditions make sure that the company isn’t unjustly punished for situations for which it is not responsible.

In fact, American travel influencers are keen to explain online that a delay in Europe can get them easy cash, and passengers can access compensation payments well beyond the actual price of their ticket.

However, EU261, which is the law requiring airlines to compensate passengers for delays, has a set of problems that would also extend to the U.S. if Biden’s plans go ahead. Most importantly, rather than a compensation scheme, you can think of the policy as a mandatory insurance plan.

Insurance companies currently offer trip delay insurance plans that operate on the same baseline as government compensation programs — and private insurance companies, obviously, will charge you for the privilege. If insurance for passengers is made mandatory, airlines will simply offset the increase in cost to ticket prices, stripping the consumer of the choice of flying insured or not.

In 2011, Irish low-cost airline Ryanair added a little over $2 per ticket to cover the cost of the EU’s mandatory flight compensation rules. Given that Ryanair attempts to offer the lowest fares in Europe — and does not fly intercontinental routes on which delays become considerably more expensive to airlines — it is safe to assume that other carriers added more charges to the ticket.

Flight compensation laws are not a benefit the government grants you; it instead, is a mandatory insurance policy you pay for out of pocket. Now you might say that this constitutes a bonus service you didn’t know you needed and that, given the significant delays of many airlines, you would want it anyway.

On that note, take it from a European like myself who has attempted to seek compensation on multiple occasions: You are much better off dealing with competing insurance companies for trip insurance than with the airline itself.

The process for receiving compensation is deliberately made cumbersome by airlines, who bank on the fact that you don’t consider it worth a few hours to fill out forms and send emails to automated customer service addresses to get your money.

In fact, the process is so complicated that a large number of companies in Europe have specialized in doing the job for you. The catch: They take varying commissions for their services, reducing the amount of compensation you are legally entitled to.

What  Buttigieg and Biden should focus on instead is reforming the FAA air traffic control to avoid avalanches of delays that Americans have had to experience in the past. This would positively impact delays without inundating passengers with a swath of paperwork that they do not want to deal with.

Originally published here

KUALA LUMPUR, 27th April 2023 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) urges the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom) to immediately implement the amendments to the Malaysian Consumer Protection Code (MACPC) which should be implemented in the first quarter of 2023 to improve the rights of aviation users.

Malaysian Consumer Choice Center representative, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “Issues involving consumers such as flight delays and cancellations, reimbursement methods and overdue periods, passenger rights and voucher redemption have become more serious since the outbreak of Covid-19. Although the pandemic has ended, this problem is still recurring and requires immediate action by Mavcom to improve the rights of aviation consumers.”

Consumer Rights

In 2022 alone, Mavcom has received a total of 8,789 cases of complaints from customers of which the three highest complaints involve refunds, lost, damaged and delayed baggage and flight cancellations. This is the highest complaint case since it was first introduced in 2016.

Tarmizi also said that the delay in the implementation of the MACPC amendment may cause the number of customer complaints and problems for this year to increase due to the development of international and domestic passengers as well as the increase in aircraft operations including the resumption of various flight routes after the pandemic.

Read the full text here