Air Serbia sees sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) as an important element of the aviation industry’s decarbonisation efforts but says its price and limited availability remain major obstacles to wider adoption. Speaking at the OIE Serbia conference, the carrier’s General Manager for Commercial and Strategy, Bosko Rupić, said SAF currently accounts for around 1.7% of the airline’s fuel use, up from approximately 0.67% in 2024. Although Serbia is not a member of the European Union, a significant proportion of Air Serbia’s operations involve EU markets, where regulations are gradually increasing the required share of SAF. Under current targets, the proportion will rise from 2% to 6% by 2030 and eventually reach 70% by 2050. SAF supplies are currently not available at Belgrade Airport.
Mr Rupić noted that SAF is between two and three times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. “Fuel accounts for between 20% and 30% of an airline’s total costs”, Mr Rupić said, adding that carriers generally operate with margins of only 3% to 4%. He argued that the financial burden of aviation’s decarbonisation cannot be placed solely on airlines or passed on entirely to passengers through higher ticket prices. According to Mr Rupić, greater involvement from governments and the wider public sector will be necessary to support the transition and offset some of the additional costs.
Fleet modernisation is another important part of Air Serbia’s efforts to reduce emissions. Mr Rupić pointed to the usage of newer-generation aircraft, including the Airbus A220, through a wet-lease arrangement, which offer lower fuel consumption and consequently reduced carbon emissions. New-generation aircraft can consume between 15% and 20% less fuel than the equipment they replace.
I'm surprised they nearly have 2% SAF usage without it actually even being available in BEG.
ReplyDeleteMaybe thanks to airBaltic?
Delete^ how is that related in any way? A220 does not run only on SAF. And airBaltic does not pay for fuel on wet leased planes.
DeleteDespite all my love for aviation, I’m not buying the argument that “greater involvement from governments and the wider public sector will be necessary to support the transition and offset some of the additional costs.”
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world would the government tax e.g. the salary of a supermarket cashier in order to subsidize someone’s weekend in Spain or wherever?
The costs of transition to SAF indeed must be born by the airlines and the passengers. We can’t have capitalism when it comes to management bonuses and socialism when it comes to covering the costs of their business.
Airlines are okay with using cheaper regular fuel available everywhere. It is EU regulations (i.e government) forcing SAF usage, so it is quite expected for governments to support building SAF infrastructure and help with the transition they mandated.
DeleteThe governments mandated the use of SAF for the protection of public good from the harmful effects of the business. Making the business less harmful to public good is the obligation of that business and not of the government.
Deletethe best comment ever anywhere
Delete@Meyraf Following your flawed logic, governments should ban all flights in order to "protect public good from the harmful effects of the business". SAF goals are utopian and usage is already trailing behind original plans. It is really used mostly as greenwashing for governments and airlines alike.
DeleteMaybe JU take the route of providing the option of the customer choosing to pay SAF contribution in their ticket (aside from any fees) during check out that helps contribute to miles/status for their elevate program, similar to what KLM/Air France does to help get extra points for status.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteThey often mention the use of A220. Could that be a possible indication they may buy it eventually?
ReplyDeleteThe need to fill up in Moscow and Dubai.
ReplyDeleteOr Lagos?
Delete