Here is why one airline CEO keeps saying sustainable fuel is a myth

While the upward thrust of business aviation over the last century has spread out once-unthinkable possibilities of seeing the world and connecting places thousands of miles away, the biggest concern over rising flyer numbers comes the full way down to sustainability.

One estimate found that the average Boeing 737 and 747 (BA) planes utilized by many airlines for short-haul domestic flights burn a median of 4 liters of fuel for every 2nd they spend within the air, while commercial aviation globally puts out more than 900 million metric an effective deal of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere and accounts for approximately 2% of total emissions.

Related: 'No more flying for you': Commute agency sounds alarm over risk of 'carbon passports'

Over the past decade, there has been a growing collection of conversations around make aviation more sustainable. One possibility that many within the industry are putting their faith into are Sustainable Aviation Fuels — fuel it can be constituted of biological products and reused waste subject material, but still has the ability to power a plane within the same way as traditional petroleum-based fuel.

Breeze CEO on sustainable fuel: 'A really inefficient technique to contend with the difficulty'

David Neeleman, who changed into behind the establishment of low-cost carriers such as JetBlue (JBLU) and WestJet in Canada and now serves as CEO of Utah-based Breeze Airways (BREZ) , has been an outspoken critic of SAFs. Earlier than the full thing of the World Aviation Festival in Amsterdam on Oct. 9, Neeleman held a keynote presentation within which he also is known as it a "very inefficient technique to contend with the difficulty."

More Commute:

• A new commute term is taking up the net (and reaching airlines and hotels)
• The ten best airline stocks to buy now
• Airlines see a new kind of traveler at the front of the plane

"SAF interrupts with the food supply; it does every kind of stuff and does no longer really solve the difficulty," Neeleman told the conference attendants. "I just think it can be a complete waste of cash. And I believe there are ways to do something about climate change, to lend a hand, that in actuality make economic sense whereas in an airplane SAF makes no economic sense whatsoever."

Neeleman's concerns come the full way down to the industry's current almost exclusive reliance on diesel fuels and the jobs that implies that be lost if this sort of drastic change may well be made within the short term. His suggestion changed into to do something about cars and other methods of ground transportation which are already further and further going electric rather than aviation, which the reason is, of the longer distances and high amounts of fuel needed, may be much more challenging and expensive to shift.

Related: Get the correct cruise tips, deals, and news on the ships from our expert cruiser

'No longer have an effect on the cost of a ticket and lay off hundreds of thousands'

"My plan may be to to learn about all those industries which are in actuality using distillate and diesel fuel," Neeleman said further. "They are much more efficient things which are rolling down a road, rather than flying within the air, and lend a hand cross subsidize those things so that we're ready to, we're ready to now no longer have an effect on the cost of a ticket and lay off hundreds of thousands of people in our industry, because airline tickets change into too expensive."

Neeleman's solutions received criticism from International Air Transportation Association CEO Willie Walsh who used the question period to claim that "do something about something else" is now no longer an excellent technique to address climate change.

"It truly is two-and-a-0.5 % at present time," Walsh said in reference to CO₂ emissions. "The question is, what's happening to it be in 2050? It is able to now no longer be two-and-a-0.5."

Related: Veteran fund manager sees world of pain coming for stocks