A carregar...
Publicação
Economic Impact of SAF on Airline' Business Sustainability
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.27 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Este estudo analisa as implicações económicas da incorporação de SAF nas operações
diárias de companhias aéreas comerciais, em particular até ao limite legalmente permitido
de mistura nos depósitos de combustível das aeronaves. A investigação surge da crescente
necessidade de alinhar as atividades do setor da aviação com os objetivos globais de
sustentabilidade, bem como da intensificação da pressão exercida por reguladores, partes
interessadas e consumidores no sentido da adoção de práticas ambientalmente mais
responsáveis.
Apesar dos contínuos avanços tecnológicos na eficiência aeroespacial e nos mecanismos
de mitigação de emissões, o SAF mantém ainda um papel marginal na aviação comercial
global, essencialmente devido à sua disponibilidade limitada e ao seu custo unitário
superior por litro, quando comparado com o CAF. Embora o SAF permita reduzir as
emissões de CO₂ até 80%, o seu elevado custo de produção — impulsionado por cadeias
de abastecimento restritas, infraestruturas de produção pouco desenvolvidas e economias
de escala ainda incipientes — torna a sua adoção economicamente inviável no atual
contexto de mercado, particularmente quando comparado com os combustíveis fósseis
tradicionais utilizados na aviação.
Para quantificar este impacte económico e explorar possíveis mecanismos de
compensação, foi desenvolvido e aplicado o Modelo SeCA (SAF em Companhias Aéreas),
uma estrutura original concebida pelo autor. Este modelo está estruturado em duas fases:
uma avaliação económica quantitativa, suportada por dados, do impacte da utilização de
SAF, seguida da implementação de três soluções de reequilíbrio de receitas, concebidas
para restaurar o Resultado Líquido a um ponto de neutralidade. A metodologia baseia-se
em dados empíricos extraídos dos relatórios financeiros das companhias aéreas analisadas,
aplica fórmulas de transformação de custos de combustível e realiza modelações de
impacte com base em margens operacionais, volumes de passageiros e estratégias
tarifárias.
O Modelo SeCA foi aplicado à Ryanair e à Emirates — duas operadoras com modelos de
negócio fundamentalmente distintos. Estes dois estudos de caso foram selecionados com
o objetivo de captar a heterogeneidade económica do mercado global da aviação comercial, oferecendo um contraste valioso entre os modelos LCC e FSC quando expostos
aos custos associados ao SAF.
A análise considerou diversas variantes de SAF, cada uma com diferentes preços por litro
(€/L) e rotas tecnológicas de produção, de forma a simular uma gama realista de encargos
de combustível sob um cenário de mistura de 50% de SAF, em conformidade com os limites
regulamentares atuais. Os resultados do Modelo SeCA demonstraram que, para todas as
variantes de SAF — com exceção do SAF-B [N] no caso da Ryanair — ambas as operadoras
registaram uma deterioração significativa no Resultado Líquido, em virtude do aumento
dos custos de combustível. Importa destacar que o cenário SAF-B [N] foi o único em que
uma companhia aérea atingiu o ponto de equilíbrio, devido exclusivamente ao preço
altamente competitivo por litro desta variante de SAF, inferior ao custo médio de aquisição
de combustível convencional pela Ryanair. No entanto, no caso da Emirates, mesmo este
cenário mais favorável resultou em prejuízo operacional, dada a sua menor base de custo
por litro de combustível convencional, reforçando assim a conclusão de que a adoção do
SAF carece, neste momento, de paridade económica com o CAF.
Após a quantificação do impacte económico, o modelo testou as três estratégias de
mitigação propostas: Solução +PAX (aumento do número de passageiros pagantes
mantendo constante a tarifa média), Solução +FARE (aumento da tarifa média mantendo
o volume de passageiros constante), e Solução Ótima (equilíbrio híbrido entre as duas
abordagens anteriores). Recorreu-se à abordagem CVM para medir empiricamente a WTP
dos passageiros por aumentos tarifários justificados pela contribuição ambiental associada
à utilização de SAF. Os resultados demonstraram que, em ambos os casos estudados, os
níveis observados de WTP — ainda que reveladores de uma crescente consciência
ambiental — permaneceram insuficientes para sustentar, do ponto de vista económico, a
Solução +FARE. A elasticidade-preço da procura, particularmente no segmento sensível ao
preço da Ryanair, agravou ainda mais a inviabilidade de ajustes tarifários como solução
isolada.
Em conclusão, a aplicação do Modelo SeCA à Ryanair e à Emirates confirma a atual
inviabilidade económica da utilização de SAF tanto nos paradigmas de LCC como nos de
FSC, nas condições de mercado vigentes. O estudo reforça a necessidade urgente de
mecanismos de apoio político de larga escala, da estabilização dos preços do SAF e de uma otimização estratégica das frotas, de forma a mitigar os custos decorrentes das exigências
de sustentabilidade. Adicionalmente, a investigação evidencia a diversidade setorial na
sensibilidade às variações nos custos de combustível, com companhias de baixo custo,
como a Ryanair, potencialmente mais aptas a beneficiar, em menor prazo, de futuras
reduções nos custos do SAF, ao passo que FSC’s, como a Emirates, poderão necessitar de
transformações estruturais mais profundas ou de ajustamentos regulatórios para manter
a rentabilidade sob regimes sustentáveis de combustível.
This study examines the economic implications of incorporating SAF into the daily operations of commercial airlines, particularly up to the legally permitted blend ratio in aircraft fuel tanks. The research emerges from the growing imperative to align aviation activities with global sustainability objectives and the mounting pressure from regulators, stakeholders, and consumers to adopt more environmentally responsible practices. Despite ongoing advancements in aerospace efficiency and emissions abatement technologies, SAF continues to play a marginal role in global commercial aviation due to its limited availability and higher cost per litre compared to CAF. Although SAF can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 80%, the high unit cost associated with its production—driven by constrained supply chains, immature production infrastructure, and limited economies of scale—renders its adoption economically unfeasible under current market conditions, particularly when compared to legacy jet fuels. To quantify this economic impact and explore viable offsetting mechanisms, the SeCA Model—an original framework developed by the author—was employed. This model is structured around a two-phase assessment: a data-driven economic impact evaluation of operating with SAF, followed by the implementation of three revenue-rebalancing solutions designed to restore the Net Result to a neutral state. The methodology leverages empirical data from the subject airlines' financial reports, applies fuel-cost transformation formulas, and performs impact modelling based on operational margins, passenger volumes, and pricing strategies. The SeCA Model was applied to Ryanair and Emirates—two fundamentally distinct carriers. These two case studies were selected to capture the economic heterogeneity of the global commercial aviation market, offering a valuable contrast between low-cost and full-service business models when exposed to SAF-related costs. The analysis considered several SAF variants, each with distinct €/L pricing and production pathways, to simulate a realistic range of fuel cost burdens under a 50% SAF blend scenario, consistent with current regulatory limits. Results from the SeCA Model revealed that, across all SAF types, except for SAF-B [N] in Ryanair’s case, both carriers experienced a marked deterioration in Net Result due to increased fuel expenses. Notably, SAF-B [N] was he only scenario where an airline achieved break-even performance, attributed solely to this SAF variant’s highly competitive €/L pricing, which undercut Ryanair’s average conventional fuel procurement cost. For Emirates, however, even this most economically favourable SAF scenario resulted in negative profitability due to its lower baseline fuel cost per litre, thereby reinforcing the notion that SAF adoption currently lacks economic parity with CAF. Following this impact determination, the model tested three proposed mitigation strategies: Solution +PAX (increasing the number of revenue passengers at a constant average fare), Solution +FARE (raising the average fare with a static passenger volume base), and Optimal Solution (a hybrid equilibrium between the two strategies). The CVM approach was employed to empirically measure passengers’ WTP for fare increases under the premise of contributing to environmental sustainability via SAF usage. Findings demonstrated that, in both case studies, the observed WTP levels—though indicative of a growing environmental awareness—remained insufficient to support Solution +FARE economically. The price elasticity of demand, particularly in Ryanair’s cost-sensitive market segment, further exacerbated the impracticality of fare adjustments as a standalone solution. In conclusion, the application of the SeCA Model to Ryanair and Emirates confirms the current economic infeasibility of SAF in both low-cost and full-service paradigms under present market conditions. It reinforces the urgent need for large-scale policy support mechanisms, SAF price stabilisation, and strategic fleet optimisation to offset sustainabilityrelated costs. Moreover, the research highlights the sectoral diversity in sensitivity to fuel cost shifts, with LCCs, such as Ryanair, potentially benefiting more rapidly from future reductions in SAF costs. At the same time, FSCs, such as Emirates, may require deeper structural transformations or regulatory adjustments to maintain profitability under sustainable fuel regimes. K
This study examines the economic implications of incorporating SAF into the daily operations of commercial airlines, particularly up to the legally permitted blend ratio in aircraft fuel tanks. The research emerges from the growing imperative to align aviation activities with global sustainability objectives and the mounting pressure from regulators, stakeholders, and consumers to adopt more environmentally responsible practices. Despite ongoing advancements in aerospace efficiency and emissions abatement technologies, SAF continues to play a marginal role in global commercial aviation due to its limited availability and higher cost per litre compared to CAF. Although SAF can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 80%, the high unit cost associated with its production—driven by constrained supply chains, immature production infrastructure, and limited economies of scale—renders its adoption economically unfeasible under current market conditions, particularly when compared to legacy jet fuels. To quantify this economic impact and explore viable offsetting mechanisms, the SeCA Model—an original framework developed by the author—was employed. This model is structured around a two-phase assessment: a data-driven economic impact evaluation of operating with SAF, followed by the implementation of three revenue-rebalancing solutions designed to restore the Net Result to a neutral state. The methodology leverages empirical data from the subject airlines' financial reports, applies fuel-cost transformation formulas, and performs impact modelling based on operational margins, passenger volumes, and pricing strategies. The SeCA Model was applied to Ryanair and Emirates—two fundamentally distinct carriers. These two case studies were selected to capture the economic heterogeneity of the global commercial aviation market, offering a valuable contrast between low-cost and full-service business models when exposed to SAF-related costs. The analysis considered several SAF variants, each with distinct €/L pricing and production pathways, to simulate a realistic range of fuel cost burdens under a 50% SAF blend scenario, consistent with current regulatory limits. Results from the SeCA Model revealed that, across all SAF types, except for SAF-B [N] in Ryanair’s case, both carriers experienced a marked deterioration in Net Result due to increased fuel expenses. Notably, SAF-B [N] was he only scenario where an airline achieved break-even performance, attributed solely to this SAF variant’s highly competitive €/L pricing, which undercut Ryanair’s average conventional fuel procurement cost. For Emirates, however, even this most economically favourable SAF scenario resulted in negative profitability due to its lower baseline fuel cost per litre, thereby reinforcing the notion that SAF adoption currently lacks economic parity with CAF. Following this impact determination, the model tested three proposed mitigation strategies: Solution +PAX (increasing the number of revenue passengers at a constant average fare), Solution +FARE (raising the average fare with a static passenger volume base), and Optimal Solution (a hybrid equilibrium between the two strategies). The CVM approach was employed to empirically measure passengers’ WTP for fare increases under the premise of contributing to environmental sustainability via SAF usage. Findings demonstrated that, in both case studies, the observed WTP levels—though indicative of a growing environmental awareness—remained insufficient to support Solution +FARE economically. The price elasticity of demand, particularly in Ryanair’s cost-sensitive market segment, further exacerbated the impracticality of fare adjustments as a standalone solution. In conclusion, the application of the SeCA Model to Ryanair and Emirates confirms the current economic infeasibility of SAF in both low-cost and full-service paradigms under present market conditions. It reinforces the urgent need for large-scale policy support mechanisms, SAF price stabilisation, and strategic fleet optimisation to offset sustainabilityrelated costs. Moreover, the research highlights the sectoral diversity in sensitivity to fuel cost shifts, with LCCs, such as Ryanair, potentially benefiting more rapidly from future reductions in SAF costs. At the same time, FSCs, such as Emirates, may require deeper structural transformations or regulatory adjustments to maintain profitability under sustainable fuel regimes. K