PRINCIPAL THINKTANK | SUSTAINABILITY SERIES
WEEK 1 | Green Promises or Real Progress? You Decide.
Airlines have become increasingly vocal about sustainability. From more efficient aircraft to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), the industry is investing in ways to reduce its environmental impact. But when a company announces a target for 2050, what does that mean for the flights taking off today? We looked at five major airlines to see what they are doing — and where the difficult questions remain.
British Airways: A Better World?
British Airways’ BA Better World programme brings together its environmental and wider responsible-business commitments. Its priorities include investing in SAF, renewing aircraft, improving operational efficiency and reducing waste. BA also gives customers ways to support SAF through its booking and loyalty ecosystem. These are practical areas of work, although SAF is not a zero-emission fuel: its advantage is measured over its lifecycle compared with conventional jet fuel.
You decide: Is investing in tomorrow’s fuel enough, or should airlines be judged mainly on how much lower-carbon fuel they use today?
United Airlines: Investment meets scale
United has made SAF a central part of its climate strategy and has expressed an ambition to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 without relying on traditional voluntary carbon offsets. Its reported SAF use more than doubled in 2025 to approximately 27.7 million gallons. That sounds substantial — until United adds that it was still only about 0.7% of its annual jet fuel use. The airline is unusually candid about the obstacles: limited production, high prices and the need for infrastructure and policy support.
You decide: Does reporting the small percentage alongside the headline achievement make United’s progress more credible?
American Airlines: Efficiency in the spotlight
American Airlines highlights fleet investment, operational improvements and lower-carbon fuel initiatives. Its sustainability reporting cites an approximately 6.7% improvement in mainline fuel efficiency since 2019, measured in gallons per available seat mile. That is useful progress: less fuel per unit of passenger-carrying capacity can reduce the impact of a journey. But efficiency is not the same thing as total emissions. If an airline operates more flights, its overall footprint may remain high even as individual operations improve.
You decide: Should airlines lead with efficiency gains, or with the total emissions their operations produce?
Singapore Airlines: A three-part strategy
Singapore Airlines describes three sustainability pillars: managing carbon emissions through fleet renewal, sustainable fuels and operational efficiency; consuming resources responsibly; and contributing positively to communities. Its programme also addresses energy, water and waste. The strategy is broad, which matters for an international airline, but the greatest climate challenge remains aviation fuel — especially on long-haul routes where alternatives to jet aircraft are limited.
You decide: Are broad sustainability programmes reassuring, or do travellers need a clearer picture of measurable emissions reductions?
Emirates: Projects with potential
Emirates has taken deliveries of SAF at London Heathrow and Singapore, backed research into lower-emission aviation through the University of Cambridge’s Aviation Impact Accelerator, and announced a solar project intended to meet around 37% of the Emirates Engineering Centre’s electricity demand. Its environmental work also includes conservation and reusing materials from aircraft refurbishments. These initiatives have value, but a solar-powered engineering facility and a lower-carbon fuel purchase address different parts of a very large aviation footprint.
You decide: How should we weigh visible individual projects against the emissions associated with a global long-haul network?
The bigger picture
SAF is promising because qualifying fuels can lower lifecycle emissions, but it remains scarce and more expensive than conventional jet fuel. Newer aircraft and smarter operations can also help, yet neither removes the environmental impact of flying. The crucial distinction is between a target, an investment, an efficiency improvement and an actual reduction in total emissions. They are all worth discussing — but they are not interchangeable.
At Principal Business Travel, we believe better decisions begin with clear information. We help clients consider routes, schedules, sensible alternatives and traveller wellbeing alongside cost and environmental impact. Business travel can be valuable; the challenge is to make each journey count.
So, are these airlines making meaningful progress, moving too slowly, or doing a little of both? You decide.
Sources and further reading:
British Airways – BA Better World: https://www.britishairways.com/content/information/about-ba/ba-better-world
United – 2025 SAF reporting: https://corporateimpact.united.com/environmental-sustainability/sustainable-aviation-fuel/
American Airlines – Sustainability: https://news.aa.com/sustainability/default.aspx
Singapore Airlines – Sustainability: https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/gb/about-us/sustainability/
Emirates – 2024–25 results and sustainability: https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-group-achieves-record-profit-of-aed-227-bn-us-62-bn-in-2024-25/
Editorial note: Company-reported figures and programmes are identified as such. Reporting periods, baselines and definitions differ; figures should not be treated as directly comparable. Reviewed November 2026.
Principal Business Travel • Green Promises or Real Progress? You Decide.
