There is no honest one-to-seven ranking of airlines by sustainable aviation fuel use, because the published numbers are not measured the same way. This list names seven carriers — IAG, Air France-KLM, Lufthansa Group, British Airways, Ryanair, Wizz Air and American Airlines — and sorts them by how well each claim survives a cross-check.
The practical takeaway: an airline’s SAF figure means nothing until you know whether it is a blend percentage or a volume in gallons, and what that figure is a percentage of.
Every airline that publishes a sustainable aviation fuel number is telling you something true. It is rarely the same true thing.
SAF can be counted as a blend percentage of total fuel, as an absolute volume in gallons, as a group figure or a single carrier’s, and as a purchase commitment rather than fuel actually uplifted. Four claims, routinely presented as if interchangeable.
One region has forced the ambiguity into the open. ReFuelEU disclosure rules require operators touching EU airports to publish figures, which is why Europe is the only place where comparable blend percentages surface with any consistency. Nothing equivalent exists in North America, where carriers mostly volunteer what they choose to. And across Asia-Pacific, the numbers a traveler would most want before booking a long-haul flight largely aren’t there at all.
So this is a ranking by evidence, not by greenness. Seven carriers, three tiers, and a deliberate refusal to pretend the numbers sit on one ladder.
At a glance
- IAG — the number an outside analyst put higher
- Air France-KLM — mid-pack, and comparably measured
- Lufthansa Group — the slowest buyer in the benchmark
- British Airways — the biggest claim, and the least checkable
- Ryanair — 12.5% promised, 0.02% measured
- Wizz Air — 10% promised, 0.01% measured
- American Airlines — gallons, not a percentage
The seven carriers, sorted by what can be checked
Three tiers do the work here. The first is externally benchmarked — a third party has put a number next to the airline’s, even if the two aren’t measuring identically. The second is self-reported only, where a figure exists because the airline chose to publish it. The third is a volume, which is an entirely different unit wearing the same “SAF leader” label.
1. IAG — the number an outside analyst put higher
3.9% is what IBA NetZero‘s analysis put IAG‘s average SAF blend at across EU airports in 2024, published on 6 October 2025.
The group’s own figure for the same year was 1.9%. IAG’s later reporting puts 2025 at 291,000 tonnes, or 3.3% of total fuel — and there is a third number often quoted alongside them: that IAG bought roughly 12% of global SAF supply. That one describes 2023 purchases, not current consumption.
Being precise matters here. The 3.9% and the 1.9% are not an audit discrepancy. One covers EU-airport operations, the other the slice of activity the group reports. They are simply not the same measurement.
2. Air France-KLM — mid-pack, and comparably measured
2.5% is IBA’s 2024 EU-airport average for Air France-KLM, second only to IAG in the seven-group comparison.
An EU-airport blend average and a group-wide consumption rate use different denominators, so both can be accurate at once.
What makes this carrier useful is that its number comes from the same dataset and the same scope as its peers. That is rarer than it should be.
3. Lufthansa Group — the slowest buyer in the benchmark
0.2% is the blend Lufthansa Group reported for 2024, the most cautious figure published by any of the large European groups.
IBA’s own estimate for the same period, at EU airports, was 1.0% — the same measurement problem as IAG’s, with a wider gap between the two bases.
Zero-point-two is not a rounding error. It reflects a procurement posture that shows up plainly in the numbers: buy less, wait, watch what the mandate does to price.
4. British Airways — the biggest claim, and the least checkable
4.5% of total fuel is what British Airways currently states on its own sustainability page — the highest carrier-level blend figure in this piece.
No independent audit of that number was identified in the material behind this article. It is the airline’s own figure, published by the airline, at carrier level, while its parent reports at group level.
That is not an accusation. It is a reminder that a self-reported number is a claim, and a claim you cannot cross-check is a different kind of fact from one you can.
5. Ryanair — 12.5% promised, 0.02% measured
0.02% is IBA’s estimate of Ryanair‘s average SAF blend at EU airports in 2024.
The carrier’s publicly stated 2030 target is 12.5%. Both numbers can be true — one is a measurement, one is an ambition — but the distance between them is the finding.
Because the 0.02% is an analyst estimate rather than an audited airline disclosure, the fair description is limited measured uptake, not proof that Ryanair uses no SAF anywhere in its network.
6. Wizz Air — 10% promised, 0.01% measured
0.01% — Wizz Air is the lowest figure in IBA’s comparison, sitting marginally below Ryanair.
Its stated 2030 target is 10% of fuel from SAF. The same caveat applies as above: an external estimate of EU-airport activity, not a fleet-wide audited percentage.
Two carriers at the bottom of a benchmark, both promising double-digit blends within five years, is the target-versus-reality contrast in its purest form.
7. American Airlines — gallons, not a percentage
2.7 million gallons of SAF is what American Airlines used in 2023 — a figure that reads enormous right up until you attach the denominator.
That volume worked out to roughly 1% of the airline’s annual fuel consumption. It is the cleanest illustration in this dataset of how a gallon count and a fuel share can tell opposite stories.
American also matters because it is the clearest non-EU case here: a disclosed volume, no ReFuelEU-style reporting requirement, and no blend percentage to line up against its European peers.
Superdeals cover departures from North America, Europe and Australia.
Flight deals most people never see
Air Traveler Club monitors thousands of routes for pricing anomalies that traditional search engines miss. With ATC Superdeals members save up to 80% on each flight vs. regular fares.
Too good to be true? Check it out yourself. It's free.
Delivered weekly. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blend percentage or gallons: the difference that decides everything
A blend percentage answers one question: what share of the fuel loaded onto the aircraft was SAF? A volume answers a different one: how much SAF was bought. The two get quoted side by side, and they should not be.
Delta Air Lines shows why. Its 2025 disclosure puts SAF at 23.4 million gallons, an 80% increase on 2024 — and still less than 1% of everything the airline burned. Delta counts that volume neat, before blending, so it cannot be lined up against another carrier’s blended-fuel percentage without knowing the denominator.
| Carrier or group | Metric type and basis | Value and as-of date | Disclosure source | Audit or comparability status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| British Airways | Carrier-level blend percentage | 4.5% of total fuel; 2025 | Self-reported airline disclosure | No independent audit identified in the retrieved material; latest retrieved BA figure |
| IAG | Group-level operational blend percentage | 3.3% of total fuel; 2025 | Self-reported IAG reporting | Group-level figure; not directly comparable with carrier or EU-airport-only data |
| IAG | EU-airport average blend percentage | 3.9%; 2024 | IBA NetZero | External analyst estimate; scope limited to EU airports and intra-EU flights |
| Air France-KLM | EU-airport average blend percentage | 2.5%; 2024 | IBA NetZero | External analyst estimate; not the same basis as a group-wide consumption rate |
| Lufthansa Group | Group-reported blend percentage | 0.2%; 2024 | IBA comparison of reported company data | Self-reported figure; IBA separately estimates 1.0% at EU airports |
| Ryanair | EU-airport average blend percentage | 0.02%; 2024 | IBA NetZero | External analyst estimate; compared with a 12.5% 2030 target, not an audited fleet-wide percentage |
| Wizz Air | EU-airport average blend percentage | 0.01%; 2024 | IBA NetZero | External analyst estimate; compared with a 10% 2030 target, not an audited fleet-wide percentage |
| American Airlines | Absolute SAF volume | 2.7 million gallons; 2023 | Airline-reported figure in the established fact base | Volume is not a blend percentage; reported as approximately 1% of annual fuel consumption |
| Delta Air Lines | Absolute SAF volume, neat before blending | 23.4 million gallons; 2025 | Delta sustainability reporting | Airline-reported volume; less than 1% of total fuel; volume measured before blending |
| Qantas | Fuel-use proportion | 0.2%; current disclosure | Qantas sustainability disclosure | Airline-reported; procurement currently concentrated on selected London flights, so not directly comparable with fleet-wide figures |
| Source: British Airways; International Airlines Group (IAG); IBA; Air France-KLM data reported by IBA; Lufthansa Group data reported by IBA; American Airlines; Delta Air Lines; Qantas | ||||
The table deliberately mixes group, carrier, EU-airport and volume metrics, because the available evidence does not support collapsing them into a single ladder. It also skews toward IAG and toward Europe — a limitation of what could be verified, not a verdict on who else is or isn’t buying.
How we picked
Carriers appear here only where a specific, dated figure traced back to a named source — an airline’s own sustainability reporting, or an external analysis that published its scope and method. Targets, fleet plans and forward procurement commitments were excluded on principle; they describe intent, not fuel. Figures and page states were confirmed as of 23 October 2026.
What this means for you
Fares first. Where SAF mandates bite, part of the cost surfaces on the ticket — BEUC documented a €72 environmental-cost surcharge on Lufthansa Group flights. What that charge buys in actual fuel is not something the disclosure tells you.
Loyalty second. Alaska Airlines‘ Mileage Plan lets customers turn contributions into SAF — a genuinely different mechanism from corporate procurement: Delta‘s 2022 programme moved 1.3 million gallons to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Amsterdam through more than 30 corporate and cargo customers, with third-party assured reports attached.
Verification third, and this is the one that matters most if you fly Asia-Pacific routes. Carriers there face no equivalent disclosure requirement, so a green claim on a booking page is unaudited by default. Ask which number is being quoted before you believe it.
Reporting by
Key terms
- SAF
- Sustainable aviation fuel is jet fuel made from non-fossil feedstocks instead of crude oil, and it can be blended with conventional kerosene in aircraft flying today. Airlines report it either as a blend percentage of total fuel or as an absolute volume in gallons, and the two units are not interchangeable. The same figure can describe a purchase, a blend or a group total, so a SAF percentage and a SAF volume cannot be ranked against each other.
- ReFuelEU
- ReFuelEU is the European Union’s aviation fuel framework, which requires operators using EU airports to publish sustainable aviation fuel figures. It is a disclosure regime, so the numbers it produces are published rather than independently audited. It is also why the European figures in this article can be lined up against each other at all, while figures from other regions cannot.
- CORSIA
- CORSIA is the international carbon-offsetting scheme for aviation, under which eligible sustainable aviation fuel can be counted against airline emissions obligations. Qualifying fuel is labelled CORSIA-eligible, and purchases are recorded as volumes rather than as a share of an airline’s fuel. That is the unit problem in miniature: an eligible purchase is evidence of buying, not a percentage a traveler can compare across carriers.
- IBA NetZero
- IBA NetZero is the dataset behind IBA’s Sustainability Watch, an aviation analysis that estimates airlines’ sustainable aviation fuel use. Its October 2025 edition compares seven groups using 2024 figures drawn from EU airports and routes inside the EU, and it publishes no sample-size statistic. That is why IBA’s estimates can sit far from an airline’s own reported number: the two are measuring different pools of fuel.
Questions? Answers.
Are any airlines using SAF?
Yes. British Airways states SAF is 4.5% of its total fuel, Delta Air Lines reported 23.4 million gallons in 2025 — under 1% of its fuel, counted neat before blending — and American Airlines used 2.7 million gallons in 2023, roughly 1% of annual consumption. Qantas puts its own use at 0.2% of fuel. All are airline-reported figures at different dates, not audited fleet-wide shares.
How much does SAF fuel cost?
It shows up on tickets before it shows up anywhere else. BEUC documented a €72 environmental-cost surcharge on Lufthansa Group flights, a €30 SAF contribution offered on a KLM Amsterdam–Helsinki booking, €10 with SAS, and options from €14 to €95 with Eurowings on a Hamburg–Palma itinerary.
What those prices don’t tell you is how much fuel your payment actually buys.
Why don’t airline-reported SAF percentages match IBA’s estimates?
Mostly because they measure different things. IBA put IAG’s average blend at EU airports at 3.9% for 2024, while the group’s own reported figure for the same year was 1.9% — one covers EU-airport operations, the other covers the activity the group chose to report. The same pattern appears at Lufthansa Group, where IBA estimates 1.0% against a reported 0.2%. Those are scope and method differences, not audit discrepancies.
