Turning Challenge into Opportunity 2025

Insight: Infrastructure ownership What we heard Fuel infrastructure at airports is generally managed by consortia, third parties or oil companies. Regional models differ across the regions. While in Europe and Asia-Pacific, energy and oil producers typically own the infrastructure, in the US the airlines have more decision-making power. Mapping these ownership models is crucial to understanding how they influence airport-level decisions on SAF supply. Additional clarity on regional ownership is needed, given its effect on airports’ decisions on fuel supply handling. IATA’s survey of 123 of the largest airports globally, covering 48% of global fuel uplift, revealed that 59% have some form of restricted access to fuel infrastructure, due to ownership by a single fuel supplier or a limited group of fuel suppliers.14 Why it matters Infrastructure ownership shapes how quickly and efficiently SAF can be integrated into daily airport operations, as well as who controls fuel logistics and quality assurance. When infrastructure is managed by a limited group, airports and airlines may have less flexibility to accommodate new SAF suppliers or innovative blending solutions. This can undermine airlines’ ability to execute direct offtake agreements, complicate operational planning and slow the overall transition to SAF at the airport gate. Smart solutions Airports and regulators may assess whether current ownership structures present possible friction to SAF market entry and direct access for SAF suppliers to existing fuel infrastructure. Where restrictive ownership is identified, lessons can be learnt from airports that have successfully opened infrastructure to greater competition. For example, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (Netherlands), Los Angeles International Airport (US), John F. Kennedy Airport (US) and Suvarnabhumi Airport (Thailand) have adopted collaborative frameworks or revised access policies to enable new SAF suppliers to participate directly.15 Mapping regional ownership models and sharing best practice, both for airports as well as wider supply chains, will help inform targeted interventions that foster a more open, competitive and innovation-friendly SAF infrastructure environment. Insight: Segregated delivery of SAF to potentially mitigate non-CO2 impacts of aviation What we heard Delivering SAF to specific flights with higher contrail formation potential could conceivably help reduce non-CO2 emissions, but current infrastructure at airports may not be suitable for such operational changes. This may require segregated SAF delivery or even onsite blending. In turn, this would entail duplication of infrastructure as well as an additional feasibility and operational impact assessment – with the necessary skills and risk management required alongside. Airports interested in this specific solution may need to explore alternatives such as adjusting gate assignments for flights that are likely to produce contrails. Why it matters Failure to do this risks missing opportunities to unlock potential sustainability benefits through contrail reduction. Smart solutions Directing SAF supplies to mitigate the non- CO2 impacts of aviation requires identifying and prioritizing locations for strategic deployment. To achieve this requires collaboration to understand which regions, airports or routes could benefit from dedicated SAF infrastructure or on-airport blending capabilities, compliant with fuel quality requirements, which could deliver the greatest environmental impacts. Notwithstanding the uncertainties associated with contrail science, focusing trials and resources on these high-value opportunities can support scientific understanding while developing airport blending and storage best practice and ensuring that investments are targeted and effective, rather than requiring widespread, costly changes across all airports. Pilot-dedicated and innovative fuelling logistics solutions, such as mobile SAF fuelling trucks or modular dispensing units that can deliver SAF directly to specific aircraft or gates, would minimize the need for extensive new infrastructure. Skills and risk management need developing to ensure quality risks can be managed if blending does not take place at refineries. Optimized gate and flight assignments would streamline logistics and maximize climate impact, but this requires collaboration between airlines and airports to assign contrail-sensitive flights to gates where dedicated SAF delivery is operationally feasible.59% of the largest airports globally surveyed by IATA have some form of restricted access to fuel infrastructure. Turning Challenge into Opportunity: Supplier Voices from Heavy-Emitting Sectors 12