European Commission holds back aviation relief amid Middle East crisis

Recently, the joint Boards of Airline Representatives (BARs) across Europe expressed their concerns to the European Commission about the escalating impact of the Middle East crisis. Despite the operational challenges raised by the sector, at this stage the Commission appears reluctant to offer targeted support to airlines. The Middle East crisis Temporary State Aid Framework (METSAF) does not include the aviation sector and the recent Guidance by the Commission in support of the aviation industry does not provide the additional relief requested by the sector.

The METSAF 

On 29 April 2026, the Commission adopted the METSAF, providing targeted temporary support for the sectors most exposed to the energy price surge triggered by the escalating situation in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Based on Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and valid until December 31, 2026, the METSAF covers agriculture, fisheries, land transport, maritime transport, and energy-intensive industries. It draws on lessons from the COVID-19 and Ukraine crisis frameworks. The Commission has designed two main categories of support under the METSAF. The first is consumption-based support: Member States may compensate up to 70% of the extra fuel and fertilizer costs arising from the crisis, calculated against a historical benchmark price. The second is that, alternatively, Member States may use a simplified approach based on sectoral proxies rather than requiring individual proof of consumption, with compensation capped at EUR 50,000 per beneficiary.
Aviation, however, is conspicuously absent from the METSAF’s eligible sectors. The Commission acknowledges that jet fuel prices have increased and that airline hedging strategies offer only temporary protection. Yet it concludes that “the existing rules in the aviation sector are sufficient to address the situation as it currently stands,” pointing to emergency public service obligations for vital routes (under Regulation 1008/2008) and social aid for residents of remote regions (under Article 51 of the General Block Exemption Regulation). 

Guidance clarifying certain EU rules focusing on aviation

The Commission’s Guidance of 8 May 2026 was expected to provide some relief for the sector in relation to anti-tankering rules and slot waivers. However, despite being presented as guidance to support the EU transport sector affected by the Middle East crisis, the existing regulatory framework remains unchanged and no waivers or exemptions have been granted. 

First, the Commission does not consider the significant jet fuel price increases to justify an exemption of the anti-tankering rule. Under the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, aircraft operators must uplift at least 90% of their yearly required aviation fuel at each departing Union airport from which they operate. The sector requested a temporary suspension of this rule to allow airlines greater operational flexibility, including the ability to carry more fuel where necessary to respond to regional fuel shortages and extreme price disparities. The Commission has declined to grant such a relief and instead refers to the existing exemption for reasons of “compliance with applicable fuel safety rules”. This means that airlines can only justify falling below the 90% threshold in the case of actual fuel shortages causing safety issues at the relevant airport.   Such shortage will need to be evidenced, e.g. by a NOTAM, fuel supplier communication or other relevant operational reports. 

The Commission is similarly reluctant to amend existing rules on slot usage. EU slot regulation requires that available landing and take-off slots allocated to air carriers must generally be used at least 80% of the time and are otherwise lost to other carriers. This is commonly referred to as the “use it or lose it” or “80/20” rule. Slots may still be protected where an airline falls below the 80% usage threshold in the case of unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances outside its control. Examples include airport or airspace closures, as well as serious disturbances of operations at the airports concerned. This is the so-called “Justified Non-Use of Slots” mechanism, or JNUS. The sector had requested a broader EU slot waiver, temporarily suspending the 80% usage requirement where operations are materially affected by the crisis. The Commission has not agreed to such a general waiver and instead refers to the existing JNUS framework for cases involving airport closures, airspace closures, fuel shortages or serious operational disruptions. The Commission draws a clear line between genuine operational impossibility and commercial unprofitability. The Commission states that slot coordinators must be able to distinguish between cancellations linked to fuel shortages and purely commercial decisions to cancel unprofitable flights. It further states that “the cost of jet fuel can in principle not be considered a serious disturbance of operations giving rise to JNUS under the EU Slots Regulation”. In other words, the relevant threshold is not whether operations have become loss-making because of substantially higher fuel costs. The question is whether the operations can no longer be performed due to an actual operational constraint, such as a fuel shortage, airport closure, airspace closure or comparable disruption.

What May Still Come

The Commission’s current position stands in stark contrast to the swift action taken to support the aviation sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, carriers were among the largest recipients of State aid because of their vulnerability to external shocks. Airport slot requirements were also suspended to mitigate the economic impact on airlines and provide certainty for the season. The Commission now appears reluctant to intervene too quickly through regulatory measures or State aid. For the time being, it seems prepared to allow ‘normal’ market forces to run their course in response to rising fuel prices.

This is despite the scale of the market disruption that we are already seeing. According to EUROCONTROL data from April, the crisis has led to a 50% decline in flights between the Middle East and Europe, with approximately 1,150 flights per day affected. Longer routing has added 602 tonnes of extra fuel consumption and 1,900 tonnes of additional CO₂ emissions daily. Around 40% of jet fuel used in the EU is imported, roughly half of which transits through the Strait of Hormuz. IATA’s Jet Fuel Price Monitor shows that jet fuel prices have nearly doubled since last February, significantly increasing total operating costs. In response, carriers are already curtailing routes, passing surcharges on to passengers, and seeking relief on airport charges. In addition, the doubling of jet fuel prices has contributed to the recent shutdown of Spirit Airlines. If the current situation does not improve, further rising prices and fuel shortages may also start to threaten the financial viability of European carriers. For example, Norse Atlantic Airways has already announced that it will have to reduce its workforce due to high fuel prices. Brussels Airlines further indicated that it is assured of sufficient jet fuel supplies for another four to six weeks, but given current global uncertainty, it has limited visibility on its position in the coming weeks.

The Commission is closely monitoring the situation and the potential effects of the Middle East conflict on connectivity. Should the current crisis also extend towards a scenario of possible fuel scarcity, further action could be contemplated to ensure business continuity and the proper functioning of supply chains within the EU. A new Fuel Observatory will also monitor transport fuel supply from May 2026. Importantly, the Commission has indicated that, if the situation worsens, it will propose temporary changes to the applicable EU legislative framework.

Whether the Commission’s current position holds will depend on how the crisis develops. We will continue to follow developments and provide updates as the situation evolves.