Paris (AFP)

Under the pressure of public opinion, airlines track down the slightest trail to fly cleaner, but the demand for profitability in a highly competitive sector sometimes leads to unreasonable slippages such as "fuel tankering", fuel overload.

In one study, the Eurocontrol organization pointed to the practice of filling the tanks to capacity, in most cases to avoid having to refuel at airports where kerosene is more expensive, thus increasing the weight of fuel. the device and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Aviation is a very competitive market and every airline must minimize its operational costs to keep the price of its tickets as competitive as possible," says Eurocontrol, an intergovernmental organization charged with harmonizing air navigation, highlighting the major challenge the cost of kerosene, which represents between 17% and 25% of a company's operating expenses.

At a time when air transport is in the line of sight of environmentalists for its CO2 emissions (2 to 3% of global emissions, depending on the sector), this practice is in contradiction with commitments to lower its bill carbon.

According to Eurocontrol estimates, the overload could affect 16.5% of the flights per year in Europe and would save on average 126 euros per flight, despite the cost of the additional weight taken to the tanks.

It is not without environmental consequences, regrets the organization estimating that this practice can generate 901.000 tons of additional CO2 emissions, that is to say "2,800 round-trip Paris / New York or the annual emissions of a European city of 100,000 inhabitants ".

- The whole sector concerned -

Commissioned by the BBC, the British Airways company admitted to transport sometimes more fuel than necessary especially "when there are significant price differences" between European airports (it is for example 25% more expensive in Glasgow than in Heathrow) but also in case of strikes at an airport or for security reasons.

In early November, Willy Walsh, the boss of IAG, the parent company of British Airways, defended the group's commitment to reducing pollutant emissions while highlighting the "conflict between what makes sense commercially and financial and what we should do from an environmental point of view. "

Lufthansa, Germany, is also known to use "fuel tankering" but exceptionally and for operational reasons.

This practice "extends to the whole sector", explained Air France clarifying that for its part it applied it only "on some routes selected for economic or operational reasons".

To help combat global warming, the airline industry adopted in 2016 a global mechanism for offsetting CO2 emissions, called Corsia (acronym for the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation).

Most companies have decided on various measures by optimizing the trajectories of the aircraft, electrifying the towing equipment on the tarmac or by lightening the weight of the seats or trolleys. Waiting for the long-term solution of a non-polluting airplane.

But these efforts are not enough, said Andrew Murphy of the Brussels-based NGO "Transport and Environment", calling on governments to "be much more interventionist" including imposing a tax on kerosene in Europe.

To meet the emission reduction targets, "the equation is hyper complex," said Pascal Fabre, expert in air transport consulting firm Alix Partners. Especially since air traffic, engaged in sustained growth, is expected to double every 15 to 20 years.

And to recall "an economic equation of airlines that if they do not earn enough money they do not survive". In 18 months, at least a dozen airlines have dropped the curtain in Europe, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

© 2019 AFP