Aviation's Green Horizon: Navigating the Sustainability Imperative

Transcript

Peter Bellew:So sustainability and the challenge that we have as an industry at the moment, obviously we're coming under huge pressure from regulators. And while in some parts of the world that's, that's decreasing, I don't see any change in the approach here in Europe. We have you know, difficulty ramping up the production of SAF, certainly in some countries. Other countries, actually, people have taken up the challenge very, very well. But also, I think we've seen quite quickly over the last 18 months that the OEMs have stopped their plans for large-size electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft. And also, we have the challenges around the GTF engines and sustainability on the existing engines that we've got and time on wing on, on the other engines is difficult. So there's less interest. So all of these things are creating a pressure. But I do believe, and I have believed personally since, since I'm 10 years old, which is over 50 years ago, that we will have to get to a sustainable position. And that's the destiny that we've got because we don't have any choice. Actually. So as an industry, that's— we'll try and thrash it out here this afternoon. How we get— Haldene, what do you think? You know, we're in a difficult situation right now with targets for 2035 and 2050. How realistic do you think they are right now? And how do you think we can recalibrate that or should approach it? Sure.

Haldane Dodd:So thank you for having me and for this discussion, which, even though it's the last discussion of the panel, I think is still a very, very important one. Where are we now? So as an industry, we've actually done an extraordinary thing of working out how we can meet our climate change obligations and work out what the process is to get there. And one of the things that I'm struck with going to a lot of United Nations conferences, speaking to a lot of other transport modes and other sectors around the world as well, is that we are always seen as a hard-to-abate sector. There are 7 hard-to-abate sectors where one of them, shipping, steel, a few other things, concrete, and so forth. However, we do have a plan in place. So even though we are hard to abate, even though we've got massive challenges in getting to a net-zero goal, actually we've got a lot of the fundamental agreements in place already. We have the industry which knows basically how we need to get there, not the details of that, but certainly the overall picture. We've also got government agreement through ICAO, through the UN to make sure that we have backing from governments. I think the key question for us now is how do we scale up and accelerate the action that we need to take, the SAF scale-up, as well as technology and so forth in order to get where we need to get to. And a lot of that stuff is not something that we can control ourselves as industry. We are going to need to have support from governments. We are going to need to have support from the energy sector, from the finance community and so forth. And a lot of the work that we do is trying to reach out to those different players to say, say, hey, we know our pathway, we know our trajectory, help us get there. And it's an urgency question. So even though 2050 always seems like so far away, it's only 24 years away now. And we know that we can probably still make net zero 2050, but only if we've got the right conditions in place in the next 5 years to get where we need to in the long term.

Peter Bellew:And Thomas, from an airport perspective, and I, you know, I think the sustainability agenda is huge in Germany and has been for the last 25, 40 years. So, and that's evident even when you're around the town. But with the scene now that it looks like we're not going to have 150-seat electric aircraft and hydrogen aircraft, so the CapEx maybe that we thought airports might have to put around that is probably less. What role do you think, or what investment are the airports going to put in? I know a lot of airports have very effectively brought in discounts for using new generation aircraft, and if airlines are using SAF, what do you think you can do as an airport?

Thomas Kohr:Well, I mean, basically an airport is a user-financed infrastructure. So in the end, it's all the infrastructure and the CapEx is cost-based. So in the end, what can we bring in? As Berlin, we don't even own the infrastructure of the fuel. However, we know that our infrastructure is fit for purpose. So I think the SAF, the beauty of the SAF we have at the moment is that there's no additional— at many airports, there's no additional CapEx necessary to get to a level in SAF where we actually have to, or new infrastructure has to be built. So I think for the airports in general, I think we have other topics, we have our own topics like electricity, heating. We do a lot there, but we know that like the big part of the CO2 emission is of course with the flying itself. And yeah, what is the role of the airport in there? I think that's a bit the question, because except for being SAF ready, I think there's not really much more an airport can do.

Peter Bellew:Yeah, probably just charges is the thing that I think some airports give up to 20% discount for new generation aircraft operation. But I think, you know, from Aron's point of view, I think you guys have done very well at IG. I think you're up to about 3% use of SAF now. But SAF, it seems to be very patchy, the availability in different locations. And obviously, with the current costs around fuel in general being a huge issue for the industry, How frustrating is it for you as a company? And do you think that the industry is going to get up there with the level of availability of SAF over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years that IAG wants? How is that going to play out?

Aaron Robinson:Right. Thanks, Peter. Right. I agree that there are challenges, definitely regionally. Here in Europe, though, I think, I think it is in a very good position. The mandates help. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the cost-effectiveness of mandated SAF, But there's no question that it does enable change. And actually, last year, we were well beyond that. In the EU, we were at 3%. In the UK, we were at 5%. So these things also help in terms of energy security. And as we're looking at what's happening with jet fuel prices today, it provides security of supply in terms of a diversified piece. And that was part of really the first SAF flights, which were back in 2008. It wasn't sustainable, wasn't the focus then. It was alternative that was really the focus at the time. So I think there is a very good scope, a very good ability to go and meet those targets. We definitely need a lot more work, though, along the way.

Peter Bellew:And, you know, for TUI, you're in the really challenging sector of the market, Tilman, you know, with the leisure fares. You're probably in the most price-sensitive sector of the whole lot. How does SAF and SAF, the cost of it, play into your margins? You know, is it realistic to expect a listed company like TUI, who's always going to be challenged in competing, to be able to sacrifice margin for the cost of SAF?

Tilman Reinshagen:And that's a good point, Peter, and thanks everyone for sticking around to this topic, and I think everybody's got it close at heart, if not for ourselves, then also for the next generation. But the question is, and the elephant in the room, what about a reality check on these mandates and on the cost of SAF? For a company like TUI, if we look at a flight from Germany to the Canaries, there and back, that's 20 tonnes of fuel at €600 or €700 a tonne, as we had before the current supply crunch. If you would then add 10% of of SAF, and that ton costs about 3 times as much approximately now, that would add about €50 to €100 to a family of 4 flying on holiday. So the question is, is that really what we want to bring this affordability down? Bringing SAF in a larger amount, I think, will really solve this. And for the moment, you've said it, it's a bit patchy, it's a bit sketchy.

Aaron Robinson:Yeah.

Tilman Reinshagen:And I think we can all hope for a hockey stick of technological development so that the speed of availability will increase. For the moment, I really hope that the support we receive from the legislators and from financiers can be ramped up because I also think it's difficult to mandate technological progress or scientific progress for that matter. I think you also have to put investment behind it and I think it's a good time now looking at the crunch of fuel supply, of what's Europe going to do about that. And I think there's a great discussion.

Peter Bellew:So if we did a poll among the 5 of us, you know, like hands up who thinks availability of SAF by 2030 would be at 10% for what people want?

Aaron Robinson:I think it'll be 10% for us. I think we'll be on the way. But I think I agree the rest of the industry is going to face that challenge. I mean, last year as well, we were 4% in the US, but then looking outside EU, UK, US, it was zero. Everything was zero. There's definitely an affordability problem as we look across the rest of the world, and that's really where those governments have to step up. It's easy to go and say, have a mandate, because then if you succeed, great, you've got SAF, you've got emissions reductions. If you don't succeed, Well, you've made travel more expensive. That has reduced emissions versus kind of where you were before, and the government's picked up some revenue in the meantime. So either way, for governments, a mandate is a bit of an easy win that we have to get them to do the hard work of providing the support as well to get there.

Haldane Dodd:And I think it's important to place this in the idea of a multi-decadal energy transition, that it's not just an aviation question. It's a question beyond that as well, as you said. dealing with the climate challenge is an incredibly important thing. It's pretty unbelievable, actually. I've been to 15 climate talks, UN climate talks, you know, and only one of them ever mentioned fossil fuels. There's now a slightly parallel process to the official UN climate process, which are going to be talking about the transition away from fossil fuels, with 50 governments doing this as well. But thinking in a broader sense, Helps to think about the question of diversification of supply. At the moment, 90% of our fossil fuel comes from 22 countries. If we can think more broadly than that from an aviation perspective, we could have SAF being supplied by maybe 150 countries around the world and not have to transport it quite as much as we do with fossil jet fuel. There's some real benefits that come from that as well.

Peter Bellew:Yeah, because my own experience was, The cost of transporting the SAF or even the SAF raw materials to produce SAF create more carbon sometimes than you saved in the initial progress. So if we take it, I think we're all agreed that we're not going to see 150-seat electric planes, you know, unless somebody changes the laws of physics and battery technology. And hydrogen is also probably not realistic. at the moment because the 2 big OEMs are not saying it's not on their drawing board at the moment. So we go back to SAF and we're going to be relying on SAF. So, you know, from ATAG's point of view, what do you think we could do as an industry to actually meaningfully have a step change in production of SAF globally? And then to go to Tilman's point, that will make it affordable? Because when anything's produced at scale, that's for— or are we missing something? You know, I've seen that there's work taking place in Taiwan at the moment on tiny nuclear-powered reactors, you know, on aircraft. You know, we have had that in submarines for 50 years. Are we missing something? But on the SAF point, what do you think we could all do to start lobbying to get A step change in SAF production?

Haldane Dodd:Well, on nuclear-powered aircraft, there was one that was built, I think, by the Russians many years ago. I don't think that's a solution anytime soon or probably ever. I think we will potentially get to hydrogen at some stage, but it's not going to be before the 2050 period in a material way. So that's why SAF is the important lever that we can pull. It's almost every single study that's been done looking at decarbonization shows SAF is the most important pathway. So what we are doing is to try and make sure that at a global level, ICAO is on the ball with this. They are. We had the CAF III agreement in Dubai 3 years ago now. That set a vision for SAF in 2030, which then— I mean, the Europeans already had the RefuelEU in place by then, 6%. The UK already had 10%. But there have been a whole range of other countries that have started to bring in blend mandates as a result of that. So that is a policy response, which is a positive thing, although, as Erin said, mandates by themselves don't create a market. You need to balance a mandate with supply-side incentives and support to get the market going. So we need to see more of that for sure. I think the challenge for us is that for the last 100 or so years, in aviation and beyond that with other parts of the economy, we've had a very reliable and fantastic supply of energy in oil. We need to find a way of dealing with that, and to build up and to evolve from that is going to take time. It's not an aviation story. We can make fantastic aircraft that are more efficient. We can build engines and build aircraft and build airports that do things in better ways. But this is an energy story, and so getting the large energy suppliers on board is going to be vital, and the only way to get them on board is to get governments to make sure that they do it.

Peter Bellew:Got a couple of Slido questions here. How do you see additions in Corsia CP2-limiting airlines? Having in mind closed airspace, is there a point as we are unnecessarily burning fuel anyway? Maybe Aron and Tilman, if you want to Take that one.

Aaron Robinson:Yeah, I mean, I can speak certainly on the airspace question in particular. It absolutely does create challenges for us. It's, I mean, what was it, a few years ago, it was also a good swath of Africa had closed airspace. So we were looking, you know, massive detours kind of globally that needed work. Fundamentally, it's, you know, You know, something I think as well, the industry always finds crises, right? We've got an energy crisis at the moment. In other years, it might be a security crisis, it might be the economy. So, it's something I think we have to get— we have to face the fact that we've always had crises. Sustainability has really always come out strongly on the other side, especially on the energy ones. And it's just a matter of once we work through the distractions, the short-term distractions, getting back to the long-term business of creating this kind of change.

Peter Bellew:And Tilman, you know, if we're not going to— it's going to take time. We— I think we've acknowledged now to get up to possibly 10% for somebody like IAG who's investing a lot in it. But what do you think the plan B is for TUI if we don't get the SAF that we need in term? Because it's very evident all over the world that we're a very easy industry to tax for carbon. Right, because it's just so simple. Let's just stick a €3 per passenger extra carbon tax on all departures out of Germany for, you know, that'll affect TUI's passengers and maybe 5 in the UK, a little bit like what they're doing in Singapore. You know, what do you think the plan B is for you guys?

Tilman Reinshagen:Yeah, well, first of all, when you look at our targets of CO2 reduction at TUI, we're actually not doing too bad. We've renewed the fleet And we've also done a whole lot of other things. So we're doing okay for the moment, but to reach those critical thresholds in 2030 and '35, I think, yeah, there is need for a plan B. And that question that was asked earlier, I think that's also pointing at asking about low-hanging fruits, such as airspace modernization, single European airspace, and for the UK, modernization as well. And it feels a little bit off that there's really considerations of now making everybody pay penalties, which is not going to save a single ton of CO2 just by fining people for flying, but rather taking in the— I think the common going number is probably around 5% of efficiency you could gain from optimizing that airspace. So I think the urgency should come to everyone, and I hope that the Europeans and the governing bodies take a little step back from that maybe too national-focused approach on protecting airspaces. But rather opening up their hearts to an expedited track on the European airspace. And I think 5% here, 5% there, another step on fleet renewal on our side. And then I still believe a concerted financial push from the European side with the industry. And I think also the taxpayer and the traveller will understand paying a few euros more in order to sponsor that so that we can move into this new phase. I don't think it's a one-sided game, and I don't think the aviation industry should be left with that challenge by themselves. So our industry, the legislator, and in the end, I think the customer is open to it. I think it's really reached a society that, yeah, there is a little bit of additional cost necessary in order to make sure we reduce our emissions. So these 3 players I see in similar terms.

Peter Bellew:Aaron, with AOCs in many countries, you know, and different customer profiles, you know, you've got huge operations in Ireland, Spain, the UK, and other locations. Do you really think that the public wants— is happy to pay an extra $3, $5, $10, $15, $20, you know, on top of their ticket for sustainability?

Aaron Robinson:Yeah, I mean, I think the public is always wanting lower fares. The reality is we've been delivering pretty consistently over the course of many decades, lower fares. But customers do want sustainability as well. It is something that is important to them. The challenge is there's always this gap between voluntary action, or excuse me, between what people say they want and what their wallets actually result in. And that's a market failure. And that's, of course, why governments have turned to regulation to solve that problem, not very effectively. We think that there's a lot of overpricing for SAF in the market. I mean, last year we were actually able to get 40% lower prices for mandated SAF than our peers were. But it is something where customers do want it. It's just making it clear to them that it can't be a choice. Sustainability can't be a choice. It has to be a necessity.

Haldane Dodd:Put it this way, I think that customers would prefer to pay the amount that they pay for APD in the UK and have it go directly into SAF or directly into some efficiency measure than just into the government coffers.

Peter Bellew:History would show us that's not what will happen.

Haldane Dodd:They'll—

Peter Bellew:we could just get a raft of imposed taxes that probably don't go into—

Aaron Robinson:That don't go in. If we took the APD revenue, which this year is £5 billion, and put it all into SAF, you could get 20% SAF in the UK.

Peter Bellew:Yeah, yeah.

Thomas Kohr:Just look at Germany. We've had the topic before on this stage, right? So there is a tax in place. And actually, there was the— with this tax, there was the promise that some of these funds would flow into the ramp-up of SAF and more sustainability. We just don't see it in the budgets and it's not coming through. And what we experience in Germany is that actually capacities go around Germany. Because the taxation is there and it just imposes more costs also on the airlines and therefore the customers.

Peter Bellew:Yeah, we have another question on Slido, maybe, Haldin. Do you consider a global book and claim SAF system to be the only solution given huge cost advantages, eSAF or specific production locations? And you're taking more of a global perspective of it. How do you see that panning out?

Haldane Dodd:Global Book and Claim is not the only solution, but it's a core part of what we need to see develop in order to make sure that we can have the best alternative fuel system developed at a global level. This comes with a few different advantages. First of all, it makes it easier for airlines that have a mandatory requirement to have SAF in Europe to be able to get SAF with a lower cost, hopefully, over time, not immediately. But also, it would hopefully help develop SAF industries in countries that have the feedstocks, that have the capability to do that, but don't necessarily have the cost base to pay for it at a local level. And I'll give you an example there. All across Africa, you've got a lot of feedstock availability, across Asia-Pacific and Latin America as well, but they don't necessarily have the local airline cost base to be able to pay for that additional cost. They want that in the next 10, 15 years. So if we can start this process to build that now, actually, we will also be able to supply ourselves in the future here in Europe, but also supply local industry with SAF as well.

Peter Bellew:So I think, Thomas, you hit the nail on the head because many of these taxes that have been got, they actually aren't being channeled back into, you know, increasing SAF production or into environmental projects. So, you know, we take our 2 colleagues from the airlines here. What kind of breaks first? It's— is it the regulators, you know, that they back off? And I don't think they're going to. Or is it airline and, you know, conglomerates' balance sheets around the cost of this? Because, um, I know from my own experience, customers just always want the lowest fare, you know what I mean? And You know, it's nice to do the sustainability thing, but ultimately they're always looking for the lowest fare. You know, or do we actually at source, is it just very transparent that the passengers pay and it's a uniform amount that they pay? So it's a new type of tax and it's not just on air travel, it's on every kind of carbon use. What What do you think?

Tilman Reinshagen:I'm happy to go first. I mean, when it comes to this, we all sit in the same boat as airlines. And that's why also via our industry bodies and other organizations, we do tackle these things together to point out to the legislator the feasibility of things they're actually putting out there. And I also have some faith in the European process where we have experts elaborating and explaining exactly what we've just talked about here, what the technological and scientific reality is. And I believe that because travel is such a necessity to people, if we really would move forward and make it such an exclusive topic that people— yeah, it will be an elite thing to do air travel in the future. I don't think that's going to work with the globalized world today. So be it IAG or TUI or any other person that spoke here, I think when it comes to that, explaining to the legislator not to chuck the child with the bathwater, as they say in this moment, is something that we all do together. And they're taking a bit of time, I guess, because on the mandates that they set forth, they really want to be sure when they adjust something. But when it comes down to it, I don't think that aviation will be strangled by this. I think we will see a more sensible approach. And I really hope that this will be a joint initiative.

Aaron Robinson:On the IAG side, I mean, we have— we certainly have other levers we can turn to before we get to the point of stretching the balance sheet. Last year, we had more SAF that was in fact sponsored by our corporate customers than was mandated, than our mandated total, in fact. I mean, last week, just last week, we announced an agreement with DHL that's going to abate 1 million tonnes of CO2. So we have these levers. It's not an unlimited well of demand, but it's something that can pull us to the next phase, pull down those production costs while scaling that capacity, and that can certainly help enable.

Haldane Dodd:And I guess this is where mandates do have a very useful function, the fact that it creates a level playing field. All airlines have to comply with it, therefore, You know, all passengers, there's no sort of differential in terms of choice. I think the key thing there is that if a mandate is introduced, it needs to ensure that it is transparent, that there is a transparency of price and where the SAF is coming from, that the fuel suppliers are supplying to airlines. It also needs to be flexible. So if things aren't working quite right, even if you're not changing the mandate as a whole, you're at least changing the underlying structure having transparency in that process. And then there are other sort of small issues as well, but keep the mandate as a whole. That's probably not something you want to change.

Peter Bellew:A question for each of you to answer. What one thing that regulators are doing would you like them to stop doing in relation to this?

Tilman Reinshagen:I got one. We've now talked a lot about fuel, but I don't know if everybody knows that we actually still have a rule in place when it comes to aircraft waste. International waste that is flown from a non-EU country to the EU cannot be recycled. It has to be either burned or put into a landfill just because of some, I would say, from back in the days, regulations that declares this international waste in some way more dangerous while it's the same waste flying next to any European part. So these kind of regulations, I think, are outdated and they're preventing actually good practice such as recycling. And we're dumping and burning hundreds of tonnes of this waste every day around Europe. And wouldn't it be great if that regulation, for example, would see some renewal?

Peter Bellew:And it creates a massive stress on the airport system as well, actually. So, and it prevents them best practice. From Aaron, from your side?

Aaron Robinson:Well, we've already talked eco-taxes, so I think I'll layer on the current EU ban on operational tankering, or excuse me, on economic tankering.

Tilman Reinshagen:Yes.

Aaron Robinson:That's part of RefuelEU. They did put a ban on the economic tankering to prevent essentially long-haul carriers from trying to reduce the amount of fuel that they buy in Europe and then therefore get around, get around refuel and in turn reduce their costs. They did, keep it in place for operational tankering. And I think as we look at kind of the current fuel crisis, we're going to see a lot of those stresses, or we're certainly seeing massive stresses in terms of different fuel prices across the board. So at least a temporary suspension of that to ease the crisis.

Thomas Kohr:I would have one which is not related to fuel, but in terms of sustainability, I think topics like preconditioned air, where you just put CapEx into the system. There should be a lot more flexibility also for airports to decide what makes sense, how to deploy CapEx at which point in time. And because if there's CapEx deployed onto a topic which is just not on the top of our list, but, you know, there's only so much CapEx around, we have to do things which are just not in this moment helping, and this CapEx could be deployed elsewhere with a lot more sense.

Haldane Dodd:I would hope that they stop seeing this as an easy solution, that there's a very easy one-line piece of legislation that says you must include 10% SAF, or we will charge $10 per ticket or €10 per ticket, and problem solved. This is not going to solve the problem. In order to have a long-term solution. You need to build up supply of SAF, or you need to build up the support structures that are necessary. And some governments get that, but a lot of governments just try and find the easy way out.

Peter Bellew:Yeah, and the one thing for me with my experience operating around the world, but particularly in Europe, which I think we haven't mentioned yet, and I think it'd make the biggest difference, is what's been talked about for 30 years, the single European skies. People in the audience may not know that The charges for air traffic control in some countries in Europe are half or a third less than other countries. So, you know, airlines, particularly the low-cost airlines, will deliberately take longer routes through certain countries. And also, it's very, very— it's highly antiquated. The route network for air traffic control in Europe is very narrow and you're often flying up to 12% longer than you actually need to. And all of the aircraft, I think there's no 727s flying anymore in Europe that I know of. So all of Europe have the ability to do RNP and all the most modern. So maybe just particularly from the airline's point of view, and everybody just says to me, oh, it's just too difficult. We don't— but, you know, I think Eamon Brennan, when he was at Eurocontrol, did did make a concerted effort, and Patrick Key was, you know, in EASA. You know, I, you know, what do you think about how should we revisit that, or as an industry, how much pressure can we put to bear on bringing, you know, modern air traffic control procedures? Because for me, actually, I think that could reduce fuel usage in Europe, you know, easily by 3, 4, 5% in a matter of 4 or 5 years, and the technology's there, and it's safer as well, actually. So from the airline's point of view, what do you think, Tilman?

Tilman Reinshagen:Spot on. It is one of the lowest hanging fruits, and it doesn't depend on technology. I think it puts us at a disadvantage. Look at the United States, look at the size of their airspace, and look how smoothly people can fly from A to B in a straight line. It should be a straight line in Europe as well, because there's really no reason to go nooks and crannies or even to allow for diverting to cheaper airspace, the story that you just mentioned. So I think it's one of the disappointments of European progress that while they put this together, and I think there is some progress, so let's also be fair, they've done some steps in order to become more efficient, but it's definitely underdelivered on what we need. And I do believe politicians and others should also come and then talk to the airlines on this one, because there is, I think, national interests that should be in the European interest that is holding this back. And I'd wish for a more stringent approach to that for sure.

Peter Bellew:Because, Halldin, I think it's the one thing that you could do that we'd thank you all forever.

Haldane Dodd:You want me to do this?

Peter Bellew:Implementation of something European.

Haldane Dodd:I'll probably promise to do that.

Peter Bellew:But I think it's such a simple Simple thing to do, and but it couldn't make a complete step change.

Aaron Robinson:I would question it a little bit because while it is important, but it's also a problem we've had forever, not having enough capacity, whether it's runways, gates, airspace, and the like. I mean, Parkinson's Law, work expands to fill the time available, right? And it's got other pieces with traffic and highways. And I think it is the same. Yes, we'll go and modernize the airspace. That's great. But fundamentally, what it'll enable is more flights, which will then eventually clog it up too.

Peter Bellew:Although, well done if you can get availability of aircraft to fly those extra flights.

Haldane Dodd:I think we can't pin all our hopes on single European sky in the way that it's— when you say single European sky, we automatically think of one piece of airspace across Europe. That's never going to happen. But what we can do is find ways of making sure that the airspaces across Europe, the individual airspaces across Europe, are working much better together. And that's where CESAR's kind of been pushing so far. We spent too long trying to stitch up a single European airspace, and that's not going to happen.

Peter Bellew:But maybe the problem is that urgent at this stage in terms of sustainability that actually, you know, with a very simple approach and say being able to save 4 or 5%, maybe It's an imperative that has to happen. Just, just to wrap up, for each of you, the 4 of you, I'd love to know what do you think is the most overhyped and most overrated trend in sustainability to do with aviation?

Haldane Dodd:So from my side, hype is the overhyped thing, and we saw that particularly in the last 5 or so years that this sort of Silicon Valley style hype machine has come into aviation way that we haven't seen it in the past with a whole range of different players saying, oh, we're going to get certification in 2 years' time for this brand new aircraft that nobody's ever flown and we haven't even really tested the engines yet. That causes a distraction from what we know needs to happen in the long term. And we had governments coming to us and saying, oh, but I hear that you're going to be flying hydrogen, or I hear that you're going to be flying electric. Why do I need to be bothered about SAF? And then you have to explain to them, well, we've got 30,000 aircraft in the fleet and 15,000 of them are still going to be there and we need to fly them as well. So hype is the big issue that we've faced, I think, for the last 5 years.

Thomas Kohr:Well, hydrogen is certainly—

Peter Bellew:Hydrogen is hot air.

Thomas Kohr:In the end, yes. Now, I mean, we have done a study of what it would, you know, what energy we would use to liquefy hydrogen on our site. So if we If we did that, so lights would go off in Berlin. So we need a— we would need a massive amount of energy. So I think the technology is still not there. And the investments in the infrastructure for hydrogen, be it bringing liquid hydrogen on site or liquefying it on site, is just at the moment, at least with the current technology, it's way, way over the top.

Haldane Dodd:Arne?

Aaron Robinson:Aldein is on to something. I mean, I was in Silicon Valley earlier this week and There was hardly any people with an aviation background in this eVTOL room, for instance. I'll vary it a little bit and talk about speed of— or expectation speed. What I usually do when someone says, I'm going to be able to deliver something in 2 years or 3 years, in my head, I'm looking at history and I say, I need to multiply that by 3 to get to a realistic timeframe. What we have to figure out how to do is slim down that multiple to something a little bit faster.

Tilman Reinshagen:I'll second that and say let's do technical diligence as we do in our industry before we jump to conclusions on legislation.

Thomas Kohr:Brilliant.

Peter Bellew:So I'd like to thank the panel and you can show your appreciation for them.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of CAPA - Centre for Aviation. Our reproduction policy is as follows: you may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to CAPA - Centre for Aviation and link to the original video page. All other use is prohibited. While we aim for 100% accuracy in the transcript, there may be some minor transcribing errors.