# United Airlines Pushes U.S. Government to Fund Sustainable Aviation Fuel Like Solar Energy
Scott Kirby, chief executive of United Airlines, is making a direct pitch to Washington. He wants the federal government to fund sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production with the same commitment it devoted to solar energy development. The airline industry sees SAF as essential to meeting climate targets, but production costs and supply constraints remain barriers to widespread adoption.
Kirby points to corn and soybean crops currently designated for biodiesel as untapped raw material for SAF expansion. This domestic agricultural base could position the United States as a leader in alternative fuel production while supporting rural farmers and domestic supply chains. The logic aligns with broader decarbonization goals the aviation industry has committed to achieving by 2050.
United Airlines already uses SAF on some flights from San Francisco International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport, typically blended at 50 percent with conventional jet fuel. However, the airline can only source limited quantities at premium prices, currently running 2 to 3 times higher than conventional aviation fuel. That cost differential directly pressures airline margins and ultimately affects ticket prices for passengers.
The supply chain bottleneck extends beyond agriculture. Production infrastructure for converting biomass into flight-grade fuel remains sparse across North America. Building refineries and distribution networks requires capital investment that private industry alone cannot sustain at current margins. Government incentives have historically accelerated adoption of renewable energy technologies. Solar power benefited from federal tax credits and investment programs that reduced costs from roughly $4 per watt in the early 2000s to under $1 per watt today.
Kirby's strategy contrasts sharply with Europe's approach to SAF mandates. The European Union has introduced regulations requiring airlines to blend increasing percentages of SAF into their fuel starting in 2025, beginning at 2 percent and rising to 70 percent by 2050. Kirby criticized this model as economically inefficient, arguing that mandates without corresponding production capacity and subsidies simply drive costs higher without creating sustainable supply solutions. He contends that the U.S. approach of investing in production infrastructure and agricultural feedstock development serves the industry better long-term.
This debate reflects deeper divisions in how democracies address aviation emissions. Europe prioritizes regulatory requirements to force industry transformation. Kirby's United Airlines approach favors market-driven investment supported by strategic government funding, similar to how solar subsidies sparked innovation and cost reductions.
For travelers, this matters considerably. SAF availability and cost directly influence airline pricing and profitability. Widespread affordable SAF reduces the industry's environmental impact without forcing fare increases. Airlines investing in SAF now, including United, Southwest, and American, position themselves as sustainability leaders, potentially attracting environmentally conscious passengers willing to pay modest premiums.
The coming years will reveal whether U.S. agricultural capacity and government investment can overcome supply constraints faster than Europe's mandate approach. Both strategies acknowledge that aviation cannot decarbonize without SAF. How that fuel gets produced, funded, and distributed will reshape airline operations, agricultural policy, and ultimately flight prices across the Atlantic.