The End Of Net Zero 2050 For Airlines
19:07 Share

Welcome to the Check 6 Podcast. I'm Joe Anselmo, Editorial Director for the Aviation Week Network. The moment was historic, and the Times requested bold steps. As the COVID-19 pandemic slowly began to subside, the world's battered aviation industry convened in Boston in the fall of 2021 for the International Air Transport Association's annual meeting. And bold the airlines were, committing to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Now, less than four years later, IATA appears to be throwing in the towel. IATA Director General Willie Walsh, speaking at an industry event in Phoenix, expressed strong doubts airlines could meet their emissions goals in the next 25 years. So is the industry abandoning its bold push to become sustainable following recent moves made in other industries? Or is it just acknowledging a reality that its emissions timeline was too ambitious from the start?

Aviation Week executive editor Jens Flothau attended Walsh's speech and joins us on Check 6. Also with us, our senior propulsion editor Guy Norris and air transport editor Christine Boynton, who closely tracks U.S. Airlines. Jens, take it away. What did Willie Walsh say and why was it so momentous? Well, it was momentous because it was the first time that he admitted that he believes the airlines will not make 2050.

It was astounding, astonishing that he did admit it, I found, and where he admitted it. So this was the iStat Americas event, Phoenix, Arizona. It's a gathering of the financing community, the source banks, funds, and so on. So it's not the typical stage for someone, for an airline executive like Walsh to show up and reveal such a, give such a message.

So I was wondering why he did it. We can probably talk about that later. So what he said was, we're going to have to revisit the net zero target. We're not making as strong a progress on sustainable aviation fuels as we thought. There will be a re-evaluation. So he kind of stopped short of saying, forget it. But he hinted at that.

And I believe that he did it now to prepare the grounds for the IATA, General Assembly, which is happening in June in Delhi, where the airlines would have to talk more about that. Okay. You and I both agree this is momentous, but neither of us was surprised, nor were our colleagues. I mean, we have been saying for quite some time that

There was no real clear path to getting to net zero for the industry. I mean, SAF was a huge part of it, and SAF is just not getting out of the barn. It's true. It's not a surprise to anyone who's been following this. I do think it's still a surprise that he said it at this time, in a way. After all, yes, it's unlikely I will make it, but it's also 25 years now.

before we get to 2050 and to make that statement now says something. The concern I have is not that it's unrealistic or it's not true or anything. There's good reasons to say it. But when you say it, my concern is that you're taking pressure off the industry to continue because it comes out and says, basically, we're not going to make it. Everyone steps back. It's kind of

We've heard this on other industries in the recent weeks. We've heard this from Airbus on the hydrogen project, which is being delayed. It just seems like since sustainability has been moved off the agenda, or at least off the top of the agenda in many countries, including the US, people think that now they can say things that they wouldn't have dared saying only a few weeks ago.

I think what you're saying is there is a political backdrop here. I mean, 2021, the Biden administration was just past this new green deal and European governments were mandating, you know, that industries get green. The airline industry had to do something. That's not the political case anymore, right? The Trump administration is much more skeptical of sustainability to pushes, mandates, whatever you call them.

Yeah, it is no longer the case. But unfortunately, it's also, it meets with a reality where, you know, the SAF production increases are just not happening at the pace that they have to. I mean, SAF production has doubled last year. It's going to almost double again this year, but that's still a tiny fraction of overall demand. So what Walsh said is,

in a way, just a reflection of what's happening. Christine Boynton, you cover airlines on a daily basis. Are we being too harsh? I mean, airlines are still saying they're committed to becoming more sustainable, right?

So far, yes. I think, you know, kind of just starting out by echoing one of the things Yen said, you know, even if those targets were overly ambitious, I do think they have spurred some really positive action from airlines because really without aggressive targets, I think you've run the risk of not getting the kind of innovation that you need. So we have seen some interesting progress.

developments from airlines. United, for example, launched the United Airline Venture Sustainable Flight Fund. That's looking to fund startups not only with SAF development but also new technology. And what's interesting about that one to me is that their corporate partners also include other airlines. So it's kind of bringing together the kind of collaboration we always hear, you know, we're talking about innovative things. We need more collaboration. We need more collaboration. Well, this is, I think, a good example of that.

And I did have a chance to touch base with the big four U.S. airlines after Willie Walsh's remarks and no news from any of them on changing their targets yet. Delta says it remains committed to its past net zero by 2050. Southwest doesn't have any changes to its goals to report. Americans remains in place.

United has no news on that at this moment. But, you know, I will note that this fall, American CEO Robert Isom did also raise separately his own concerns about industry progress not moving fast enough. You know, he touched on needing supportive policies and investments and so forth. So, I mean, that's where we are now.

Guy Norris, aircraft manufacturers have to play a role in this too. I mean, you can't get to net zero without new airplanes that pollute a lot less. And Boeing and Airbus certainly are in no rush to move beyond their current models. Well, that's true, Joe. But it must be you sort of recall that the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO,

has actually, so we're looking at the situation as sort of a carrot and stick type of situation in a way. You know, you have ICAO trying to set as many sort of guidelines and rulings really to help in this sustainable process as possible. And at the same time, obviously they're trying to protect the industry which it serves. But one of the issues is that, you know, they've actually mandated Boeing

Two aircraft that Boeing has been producing will come to an end, you know, at the end of 2026 into 27. They'll not be allowed to deliver the current 767 freighter and the 777 freighter as they currently build them under these new ICAO sort of lead legislations on noise and emissions.

So they are doing something. But what's really interesting is that literally at the same time that Willie Walsh was talking about IATA's gloomy view at ISTAT, ICAO was busy issuing a kind of an update on the meeting of the Committee on Aviation, Environmental Protection, or CAPE, as they're more familiarly known.

And it's interesting because the timing is just classic. It's Cape really that's driving so much of this attempt to get to 2050 net zero. But what they've realized is that

although they put the rules out there, they haven't actually got any sort of teeth behind it or really any commitments into concrete action. So what this CAPE, the latest meeting, CAPE 13, it only took place a couple of weeks ago, and it generated 31 recommendations which cover the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions against, you know, a chaos long term global goal.

more stringent aircraft noise and emission standards for CO2. And it also apparently made progress on non-CO2 emissions, climate adaption, fuels, and even Corsair, which for our listeners that may know that ICAO is carbon offsetting and reduction scheme. So they're really seeing this as a pivotal time. I think they see that the whole

inertia is slowing down the momentum towards 2050. And they're really trying to sort of get ahead of that to try and say, look, we can get some environmental commitments to convert these into concrete action. And just

And I'll finish there. But one of the last things is they haven't yet actually issued what these new standards are, what these new limits are. We won't know that yet, really. And in fact, they won't even vote on this until the next ICAO meeting in October. But, you know, I think by then we're probably going to get a little view on to, you know, what the bit more detail into what these targets are.

I just want to add something here. Walsh saying we're not going to make it is setting the airline industry up for conflict with a lot of governments, actually. First and foremost, the European Union. Don't forget there are mandates in place in Europe.

one for 2030, one for 2040 and so on, and that's steeply rising for SAF quotas. They are not changed. They are still there in spite of what the airline industry wants. So it's going to be interesting to see that debate evolve. And as much as the airline industry and IATA are complaining about the European Union regulating and dumping a burdensome regulation on the airline industry in the form of mandates,

It's important to know that it's not only Europe. There are a lot of SAF mandates elsewhere, including in Asia, where growth is very fast and where people like Walsh like to point to the amazing growth in India, the amazing growth in China. Don't forget, there's a mandate in Singapore, there's a mandate in Australia, New Zealand, and so on. And it's not just Europe.

So there is going to be a global debate about this. And just because the airlines say we're not making it doesn't mean that they're not going to be forced to action by governments if they uphold their current positions. And just to follow on to that, I know that, Joe, you mentioned how SAF, Sustainable Aviation Fuels, are really the bulk of this immediacy. That's the big problem. I know Jens had reported that...

You know, SAF production reached only 1 million tons in 2024, although that was double what had been achieved the year before. It's still only 0.3% of jet fuel demand, nowhere near what's going to be needed. And so one of the key things that ICAO is saying in this CAPE report is it's the committee's work that they've done on SAF

is will accelerate, they think, the certification of new sustainable fuel pathways. So, you know, new ways of creating SAV, which they say that, you know, that's going to be critical for getting towards the aviation sort of goal of 5% CO2 emissions reduction through cleaner energies, but just by 2030.

So, you know, they're not sort of throwing the towel in on the 2050 target yet. But they're certainly sort of at least saying if we follow this stepwise progression, there is still a chance that we can make a big impact.

I find it almost a bit hypocritical to say, you know, we're not going to make it at this point. If you look at, and this is not the airlines, I admit it, but these are the manufacturers. If at the same time, everyone keeps pushing everything out. Yes, of course, you're not going to make it if you're not developing new aircraft. If you're so slow in coming up with new engine technology, if there's just one startup, Jet Zero, trying to do something really innovative in the 2030s, just a few

years ago, two years ago actually, we were talking about Airbus launching a new narrowbody in '27, '28 or '29. No one talks about that. NJD service was supposed to be mid-30s. No one talks about that. It's 2040. At the ISAT conference, one of the interesting comments I heard was that people believe that soon the source will place orders for current generation aircraft, so NEOs or MAXs.

for delivery in 2040. So, you know, we're extending this status quo not forever, of course, but for a very, very long time. And if you're doing that, yes, of course, you're not going to make the 2050 cut target because those aircraft that are going to be delivered in 2040, they don't fly until 2040.

20, whatever, 65 or 70. So the industry is really in a bad place and partly self-inflicted position that will cause some serious debates with governments and rightly so.

Guy, Jens just threw out some timelines there. You know, we were talking about 2050. He mentioned 2040. When I was at the Farnborough Air Show last year, a guy from Boeing gave me an earful because I was criticizing Boeing and Airbus for not moving quickly enough. And he said, the technology just isn't ready to make game-changing improvements in efficiency. I mean...

How long is it going to take to make some big step change improvements in propulsion and aerodynamics and other efficiencies? Yeah, well, and I was going to say, I mean, Jens mentioned Jet Zero there. I think you've got to look at this problem in two ways. One is...

you can bundle together technology that's almost available now and still take a big bite out of this problem. But the other way of doing it, and again to Jens' point, is refleeting with current technology aircraft like the LEAP-powered A737 MAX or the GTF or LEAP-powered A320 NEO family. And you can make a big difference there as long as you're fueling it with SAF.

you know, or at least looking at that as a starting point. So, you know, it's not all doom and gloom, but I do. And to your point, Joe, you know, the fact is technology still takes a long time to advance into everyday service. And what Jet Zero, for example, is doing is taking a bigger stride by embracing the blended wing body, which

you know, is inherently potentially more efficient because it produces lift from where the fuselage is, immediately you get the benefit and so on and so forth. So I do think that their plan to really roll into service in the 2030s with a commercial model could be an inspiration.

You know, and I think with a combination of mass production of modern, the modern generation with SAF-fueled engines and the few innovations that we're seeing in other areas like blended wing body, you know, you could begin to chip away at this problem. But I think it's going to take a lot more than that. And there's a big cliff edge coming, you know.

And you mentioned Jet Zero. For our listeners, Jet Zero is a blended wing body prototype that would be a dual airplane, could serve as a military tanker or a passenger aircraft. And the company has U.S. Air Force funding to go develop a prototype of that that's going to fly in 2027? Correct. Yeah, that's the target right now. Okay.

Christine, we're almost out of time, but I want to come back around to airlines. You said airlines haven't given up on getting more efficient, on their pledge to be more green. What specifically are some of the airlines doing? Sure. Well, I mentioned the United Airline Ventures Sustainable Fund earlier, but they're making investments in technology. They're looking to start up technology. They are doing things like

looking to reduce the weight on the aircraft in different manners. Southwest has done an interesting investment in the last, I would say, year or so. They've invested in corn stover to ethanol technology. And they're actually construction of a first of its kind plant, which is backed by Southwest, has begun in Kansas. And the production there is expected to start at the end of the year. And what that does is

is it processes corn stover, which is basically kind of what's left behind after corn is harvested, the leaves, the stalks, the cobs, the husks. And that's expected to be able to process about 10 tons per day of corn stover, which would then be turned into SAF once it's converted into ethanol. So, you know, I think, again, with aggressive targets comes aggressive action. So, you know, I hope airlines don't lose momentum from here, from what they've achieved so far.

But don't you agree with Jens' point that by Willie Walsh saying that he's taking a little bit of pressure off the airlines? Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, I just hope that they have the foresight and thinking far enough ahead to not back down on the momentum they've achieved so far because this could really set us back.

Okay. Well, unfortunately, we're out of time, but I am sure we will come back and revisit this topic many times. But for now, that is a wrap for this week's Check 6. A special thanks to our podcast editor, Guy Fernyhoo, who stayed up late in the United Kingdom to get this recorded. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Check 6 so you never miss an episode. If you found today's discussion to be helpful, consider leaving a rating or review wherever you listen to podcasts.

Better yet, share this episode with a friend or colleague. Thank you for your time and have a great week.