Request for suspension of ReFuelEU Aviation regulation enforcement for Small Aircraft Operations

Dear Commissioner Tzitzikostas,

The European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) and the broader business aviation community write to express deep concern regarding the implementation of the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2025.

This regulation mandates that aircraft operators uplift at least 90% of their annual fuel requirements at EU airports and comply with extensive reporting obligations. While we commend the ambition to foster sustainability in aviation and understand the environmental objectives behind this regulation, we must voice our deep concern that this mandate imposes significant safety risks and operational constraints, while its environmental benefit is marginal and potentially counterproductive.

Detailed concerns regarding Articles 5 and 8 of the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation

We respectfully submit the following concerns regarding the implementation of Articles 5 and 8 of the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, which pose serious safety, operational, environmental, and regulatory challenges for the business aviation sector.

1. Heightened safety risks

The regulation creates unprecedented pressure to reduce safety fuel reserves, potentially compromising flight safety in multiple ways:

• Inadequate fuel reserves: Business aviation often involves variable routing, IFR/VFR transitions, and unforeseen delays. The Regulation incentivises minimal fuel uplift at non-EU airports, pressuring crews to reduce safety reserves to meet compliance on arrival — a direct conflict with prudent fuel planning and established safety protocols.
• Increased crew workload and fatigue: Rushed turnarounds due to mandatory uplift create excessive workload, stress, and potential flight duty limitation breaches, which are known contributors to human error and incidents.
• Elevated risk of fuel contamination and corrosion: The frequent, small-volume refuelling required to meet the 90% threshold (often just a few hundred litres) complicates the management of anti-icing and biocide additives. This significantly raises the risk of contamination, corrosion, or icing — critical safety hazards not previously assessed under this Regulation.

2. Operational disruptions with direct business impact

The regulation causes significant operational challenges that undermine the core values of business aviation:

• Delayed ground operations: Business aviation operators, often deprioritized at congested airports, face delays of up to several hours for refuelling. These unpredictable turnaround times erode two of the sector's core values: flexibility and efficiency.
• Network-wide disruption: Compounded turnaround delays contribute to missed slots, flight cancellations, and wider network inefficiencies, impacting not only operators but also airports and air traffic management.
• Impractical exemptions: Article 5(3) requires exemption requests to be filed three months in advance — entirely incompatible with the short-notice nature of business aviation. Flight-by-flight justifications for operational or safety-based tankering are disproportionate and unmanageable for small operators.

3. Negligible or counterproductive environmental impact

Our analysis indicates that the regulation's environmental benefits are minimal and potentially counterproductive:

• Minimal tankering effect: For over 75% of business aviation flights (turboprops and light jets), tankering increases fuel burn by only 1–2%. The environmental benefit of restricting it is negligible on smaller fuel tanks.
• Unintended consequences: In Business Aviation, routings can change after fuelings are done. If an aircraft lands with too much fuel at an EU airport because it's routing has changed, it is still obliged to fuel 90% of it's following trip. The Regulation sometimes forces tankering, resulting in opposite outcomes from its environmental objectives.
• Obstructing more effective measures: Extended ground times discourage fuel-saving practices such as cruise speed reduction, which can achieve up to 20% fuel savings, far outweighing any gains from fuel uplift mandates.
• Undermining voluntary sustainability efforts: Operators engaged in SAF Corporate Programs or Book & Claim schemes receive no recognition under the Regulation, discouraging proactive support for SAF production and uptake.

4. Administrative burden and regulatory inefficiency

The regulation imposes disproportionate administrative challenges:

• Extensive reporting requirements: The reporting obligations are disproportionate for small operators, diverting resources from operational safety and actual environmental improvements.
• Unequal enforcement across Member States: The reliance on national authorities for interpretation leads, and is already leading, to inconsistent application of exemptions, undermining regulatory fairness and creating an uneven playing field.
• Lack of practical exemptions: Current exemption procedures fail to account for the legitimate operational necessities of business aviation operations.

Urgent request for action

On behalf of the business aviation community, we respectfully but urgently call upon the Commission to reconsider enforcement of the regulation for unscheduled air transport involving aircraft with a MOPSC of 19 seats or fewer, and to adopt one of the following measures:

1. Suspend enforcement until 2027, granting all stakeholders time to assess the regulation's true impact through comprehensive data collection and analysis;
2. Maintain the reporting requirement to enable data collection, but defer all enforcement actions (i.e., fines) until a formal review in 2027;
3. Limit suspension of enforcement (no fines) to intra-European flights (EU, UK, Switzerland), where small aircraft operations have minimal environmental and economic impact and are especially sensitive to turnaround delays.

Conclusion and call for collaboration

We urge the Commission to reconsider the blanket application of Articles 5 and 8 to non-scheduled air transport operations, particularly for aircraft with 19 seats or fewer. Without proportionate amendments or a phased approach, the Regulation risks introducing new safety hazards, undermining operational efficiency, and delivering limited, if not adverse, environmental outcomes.

The EBAA and the business aviation community remain available for constructive dialogue to find solutions that meet the European Union's environmental objectives while preserving the economic viability and safety of our sector. We believe that a collaborative approach between regulators and industry will yield more effective environmental outcomes while maintaining operational safety and efficiency.

We trust the Commission will give these points the serious consideration they warrant, in the spirit of proportionate and evidence-based policymaking. We look forward to your consideration of these concerns and to working together toward a more balanced regulatory framework.

We remain at your disposal to provide further input or data in support of a more balanced and effective implementation.

Yours sincerely,

The European Business Aviation Community