Virgin flew across the ocean on a fuel with no name

opinion

by Oscar Henderson

August 12, 2024

In this week’s Olympic gymnastics balance beam final, four of the eight athletes fell off. Heads of sustainability at airlines know exactly what this feels like. Overstep by a few milimetres and you risk being accused of greenwashing.

This week Virgin Atlantic is the latest airline to have advertising banned by the UK Advertising Standards Authority. The advert in question celebrated the airline’s transatlantic flight on November 28th 2023 from London Heathrow Airport to New York JFK fuelled by 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This was the first flight on a commercial aircraft to achieve this.

The radio advert referencing the flight said: “On the 28th of November, Virgin Atlantic’s Flight 100 will take to the skies on our unique flight mission from London Heathrow to JFK to become the world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel. When they said it was too difficult, we said: challenge accepted. Virgin Atlantic Flight 100. See the world differently.”

This advert received five complaints from UK radio listeners to the UK Advertising Standards Authority questioning the environmental claims of the fuel. Some asked whether the “100% sustainable aviation fuel” phrasing is misleading or unsubstantiated.

Whilst those in the industry know that this refers to the fuel used on the flight. The Advertising Standards Authority suggested that this could be misconstrued to describe the flight emissions. You can read the full report here.

“The term ‘sustainable’ has gone from being an aviation industry term to being a consumer facing term,” Patrick Edmond, MD, Altair Advisory told SAF Investor. This now exposes airlines to a higher level of criticism for their claims.

Virgin Atlantic is not the first airline to be ruled-against by the Advertising Standards Authority. Air France-KLM, Lufthansa and Etihad have all recently had advertising banned for making unsubstantiated sustainability claims. In all three cases the Advertising Standards Authority advised that: “Future environmental claims did not give a misleading impression of the impact caused by travelling with the airline and that robust substantiation was given to support them.”

This has become a trend as airlines attempt to promote their sustainable actions by the authority.

“Previously in the other airline cases they did the right thing to avoid greenwashing. Prior to the Virgin flight I had sympathy [for the Advertising Standards Authority] as greenwashing is rife in aviation. I fear that this announcement is somewhat shortsighted though,” Alex Chikhani, CEO, CirculAIRity, told SAF Investor.

Edmond’s sympathy for the Advertising Standards Authority goes further as he thinks airline overclaiming is a frequent issue and this still includes claims on SAF. “The broad church of fuels that come under the SAF umbrella means airlines are going to have to be more specific in their claims. Soon they will not be able to use the term ‘sustainable’.”

Virgin Atlantic undertook the flight as the winner of a competition run by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) to operate the first 100% SAF powered flight. The terms of the competition read: “The Department for Transport, in partnership with Innovate UK, launched this competition [Net zero transatlantic flight fund competition] to support industry to achieve the first net zero transatlantic flight on an aircraft using 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) within one year.”

In its response to the Authority’s complaint, Virgin highlighted that the advert’s wording mirrored that of the DfT competition in using “100% sustainable aviation fuel,” and that this referred to the fuel used on the flight not the emissions reduced on the flight itself. The flight itself had a blend of 87.6% Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) and 12.4% Synthetic Aromatic Kerosene (SAK).

The Advertising Standards Authority found that despite the wide use of the term sustainable aviation fuel within the aviation industry, a significant proportion of the public would misunderstand the phrase “100% sustainable aviation fuel.”

It’s recommendation to Virgin Atlantic was: “ensure that future ads which referred to the use of sustainable aviation fuel included qualifying information which explained the environmental impact of the fuel”.

The issue with this is the complexity in working out carbon emissions reductions when using SAF and the fact this can only be done in hindsight. The flight was later found to have 64% carbon emissions saving compared with traditional jet fuel.

“People need to know SAF is a thing…The November flight was a tipping point that allowed SAF to become a standardised term to the public,” said Chikhani. “SAF is a good definition to say that the fuel is a certain extent greener than traditional jet fuel.”

Sustainable aviation fuel is a broad term that covers many different production pathways and feedstocks, each with their own Carbon Intensity scores. Every flight is going to have a different emissions saving compared to traditional jet fuel depending on the blend, production method and how it got to the airport.

“While we are disappointed that the ASA has ruled in favour of a small number of complaints we remain committed to open, accurate and transparent engagement on the challenge of decarbonisation,” said Virgin Atlantic in a public statement.

This will not be the last time airlines fall from the beam. They will fall many more times promoting their sustainability actions. But they should keep going. You only win a gymnastics gold medal if you have fallen off the beam thousands of times along the way.