This article is published in Aviation Week & Space Technology and is free to read until Jul 29, 2026. If you want to read more articles from this publication, please click the link to subscribe.
European airports could face jet fuel shortages and turn to Jet A for temporary relief.
Bottlenecks in the global fuel supply chain are prompting Europe and other regions that rely on Jet A-1 to consider sourcing more readily available Jet A fuel instead.
The two predominant jet fuel types are technically interchangeable in most commercial aircraft engines and can be intermixed–type certificate data sheets spell out allowances and restrictions. But switching or mixing fuel types requires planning, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) caution in new guidance material.
The two fuel types are covered by two different internationally recognized standards: ASTM D1655 for Jet A and Jet A-1 and the more rigorous Def Stan 91-091 solely for Jet A-1, which is used in Europe.
Among the key differences: Jet A‑1's freezing point is ±47C (-53F), whereas Jet A has a freezing point of ±40C. Within the standards, ASTM D1655 permits the use of an ignition risk-reducing static dissipator additive (SDA), while Def Stan 91-091 requires it.
Because of Jet A's higher freezing point, it requires less refining than Jet A-1, making it cheaper to produce. For operations on routes that require lower freezing points, additives are used.
North America is the major producer and consumer of Jet A. Other regions, including Europe and Asia, favor Jet A-1, and much of the fuel infrastructure there is built around SDA-treated fuel.
Many users also rely on the Gulf region for their supply. S&P Global calculates that Europe imported 40-44% of its jet fuel from the region in 2025.
For many Jet A-1 users, this disruption is prompting a shift to Jet A. The transition to Jet A in a Jet A-1 environment, when not properly managed, creates risk of fuel grade confusion, particularly in the communication between fuel suppliers, flight crews and airlines, EASA wrote in a May 8 safety information bulletin (SIB). This may lead to a mismatch between the actual fuel properties and the assumptions used for flight planning, fuel temperature monitoring and crew procedures. Consequences may include reduced freezing point margins, delayed or inappropriate crew response to low fuel temperature conditions and potential engine performance degradation or fuel system restrictions.
Jet A's lack of an SDA could also introduce risk if the fuel is used in environments designed to Jet A-1 conductivity specifications. Although North America operates without a defined minimum conductivity limit, it cannot be assumed that European infrastructure has been fully risk-assessed for this change, as it has been designed for fuels with specific conductivity characteristics, EASA said. In particular, it is not clear to what extent existing European infrastructure, procedures and electrostatic hazard controls across the supply chain would remain fully effective for low conductivity fuels.
EASA's SIB lays out recommendations for aircraft operators, airports, fuel suppliers and regulators. The general theme is to document any changes and assess their ramifications on flight plans and other operational factors. Key information must be communicated to flight crew and affected ground operations personnel.
Jet A is used daily for flights from and within the USA and Canada, EASA said. A potential introduction of Jet A in Europe or in other parts of the world would not generate safety concerns provided that its introduction is properly managed.
IATA's Technical Fuel Working Group issued a similar set of recommendations days before EASA's bulletin. The use of Jet A fuel at locations customarily supplied with Jet A-1 is technically feasible and already implemented in some regions where fuel quality controls, logistics arrangements and contract terms all support it, the IATA guidance said. There is no general regulatory prohibition to such use; however, the key requirement is to maintain correct product certification, fuel grade control and clear operational communication throughout the supply chain.
Both EASA and IATA framed their guidance as a temporary step until the Middle East conflict subsides and oil shipments return to historical patterns. IATA welcomed EASA's bulletin and related European Union moves to make Jet A a viable alternative.
The ability to make use of alternative fuel sources could give airlines facing a possible shortfall in fuel supply more options, said Stuart Fox, IATA director of flight and technical operations.
Where applied, it will allow European carriers and airlines from other regions to operate in the same way as many in Canada do, where they switch between Jet A and Jet A-1 as part of seasonal operations, Fox wrote in a May 8 commentary shared on IATA's website. This would have to be done through a controlled transition from one approved fuel grade to another.
Related Content
