The European Commission’s efforts to prevent fuel tankering by aircraft operators are posing significant headaches for the business aviation sector. Rules that took effect from January 1 will impose significant financial penalties on operators conducting 500 or more flights from European Union (EU) airports each year who can’t prove that they uplifted at least 90% of their required fuel from those locations.

According to the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA), the anti-tankering policy is fundamentally unfair and disproportionate for the sector it represents. Nonetheless, reporting requirements start on March 1—applying to all commercial operations but not to flights operated under private rules—creating what the industry group said will be a huge administrative burden. Penalty payments for fuel deemed to have been tankered based on uplifts falling short of the 90% mark will be charged at twice the cost of the fuel.

There are two criteria for being exempt from the rules: proving that fuel uplifts outside the EU were justified on safety grounds, and establishing that it would not be operationally feasible to take on fuel at a specific airport. In both cases, operators have to apply for exemptions three months in advance of the flight, which EBAA has told Commission officials is completely unworkable in the context of short-notice business aviation operations.

Aviation sustainability specialist 4Air is working to help operators comply with the new requirement. Company president Kennedy Ricci told AIN that both exemptions are challenging for business aircraft operators to secure.

“With fuel that you tanker for safety reasons, you can’t abuse it and you have to show that it is justified as part of your standard operating procedures,” he advised. “So you can’t tanker fuel for three hours of flight time if it’s not in your SOP. You have to document everything, including factors such as whether there were exceptional weather conditions.”

Too Hard To Refuel at Some Airports

One of EBAA’s objections to the new requirement is that there are multiple EU airports used by its members that do not have capacity to refuel business aircraft in a timely way. Róman Kok, the group’s director of public affairs and communications, told AIN that compliance will have a “huge” negative impact on operations.

“We are very concerned about delays because having to refuel frequently at airports will mean extending turnaround times and that could mean operators miss slots,” he explained. “Also, business aviation [operators] are usually at the back of the line for refueling [after airlines].”

EBAA members have complained that at some airports, such as Mykonos (LGMK) in Greece, business aircraft are only allowed to stay on the ground for 30 minutes. The group said many airports have limited fueling infrastructure and that, paradoxically, expanding ground support infrastructure could increase the environmental impact of operations.

FuelerLinx is another company helping operators deal with the complexities around the new anti-tankering rules. The fuel optimization tool it created—ironically, in part to help operators to tanker fuel effectively to reduce costs—is now being used to help clients who need to understand how they can do the exact opposite and avoid tankering fuel to avoid penalties.

According to Karen Rutowksi, FuelerLinx’s director for sales and product development, the tool considers fuel pricing and availability at any given location and also factors in the operating profile of each client and each of their aircraft, plus forecast winds, air traffic control routings, and any operational considerations relevant to fuel purchase decisions. She said the company is supporting tactical decisions over fuel uplifts, especially taking into account challenging circumstances, such as lack of fuel availability at locations such as Nice Cote d’Azur Airport during the peak summer season.

In some instances, the tool will guide operators to take on more than 90% of a fuel uplift to compensate for scenarios in which it is not possible to do so. It also allows operators to “override” a recommended fuel uplift while recording notes to explain the decision for future reference and reporting.

Significantly, FuelerLinx has advised clients that there may be scope for being granted retrospective exemptions from the anti-tankering rules, but only if they can provide supporting data from flight logs and other documentation. The company’s tool uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to read and notate fuel invoices as part of the process.

Tankering Rules Could Deter SAF Use

Reducing carbon emissions is one of the declared intentions of the new anti-tankering rules on the basis that aircraft fully loaded with fuel will burn more fuel. However, in tandem with the ReFuelEU policy to induce increased use of still-hard-to-source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), aviation lobbyists have complained that it is as much motivated by economic pressure for operators to buy fuel in Europe rather than at less costly locations, such as the Gulf states. What’s more, in some instances, it appears that the anti-tankering rules could actually discourage operators from buying SAF where available at airports outside the EU.

EBAA has also complained that the quarterly reporting process for the tankering rules overlaps with deadlines for the existing emissions trading scheme. “It all has to be done within the same couple of weeks and it is a huge burden for small operators,” Kok said.

In theory, airlines—with their larger back-office staff—are better placed to handle the bureaucracy and also find it easier to apply for exemptions. However, trade associations Airlines for Europe and the European Regions Airline Association have both complained about the rules.

According to sources close to the issue, Dutch flag carrier KLM deployed a logistics team to work out how they could meet the requirement to uplift 90% of their fuel at EU airports. Reportedly, they only managed to achieve a 70% uplift.

The team at 4Air has been assessing all possible European routes used by its clients to work out factors such as distance limitations for fuel uplifts. Ricci advised that some operators may be able to file for multiple exemptions if they can prove that appropriate operational constraints apply, and the company is also urging operators to work closely with fuel suppliers and ground support providers to try to navigate the challenges posed by the new rules. That said, he added that no operators he is aware of have yet secured an exemption.

“[Operators] need to be thinking about it from an airline perspective,” Ricci said. “It’s not about route limitations, it’s about the airports, and we’re hoping we can provide some education, at least for the shorter flights [in the EU].”

Data collection is essential, and that starts with covering operations in 2024, even though penalties will not apply retrospectively for that reporting period. Headaches for airlines and business aircraft operators have been made more intense due to the fact that the EU guidance materials were only issued in the fourth quarter of last year, giving little time to prepare.

“You need to log everything: the fuel you thought you needed, the fuel you uplifted, and did you meet the 90% requirement,” Ricci explained. “It all has to be verified for 2024 and onwards with the first reports due on March 1.”

EBAA Still Seeking a Rule Change

EBAA has accepted that the European Commission will only review the anti-tankering rules in 2027, following a 2026 consultation on the early phase of implementation. Nonetheless, it has already stepped up efforts to reform the policy.

The group is demanding exemptions for all business aircraft weighing less than 30 tons (66,000 pounds) or with fewer than 19 seats. Alternatively, it is urging the Commission to allow greater flexibility in the exemption process to “account for the unscheduled nature of business aviation operations.”

EBAA has also expressed concern that national civil aviation authorities may not apply the rules consistently, resulting in “interpretative discrepancies within the European aviation system,” based partly on inadequate resources at these agencies. Kok said the association “still has a bad hangover” from the way Polish authorities implemented EU passenger name record requirements. Security officials in Poland had been imposing harsh fines, and in a case backed by EBAA, the country’s supreme court subsequently ruled in favor of aircraft operators.