Scientists and climate campaigners, however, have poured scorn on these claims.
Opinions are divided over the potential of SAFs, which derive from various alternatives to fossil fuels.
The airline expects the resulting carbon emissions to be 70% lower than those produced by petroleum-based jet fuel.
She added that it was the only viable solution for decarbonising long-haul aviation.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
The reactions from the UK government which partly funded the fight have been even more optimistic.
Both claims were promptly pilloried by environmental groups.
She added that SAFs also emit as much CO2 as kerosene at the tailpipe.
This is because theyre still hydrocarbon fuels and produce the same volume of CO2 emissions as kerosene when combusted.
The AEFs concerns were echoedby Stay Grounded, a global internet of climate crisis campaigners.
The group described the flight as greenwashing.
The group also lambasted SAF as wasting biomass and renewables on transport for the rich.
It said a more fitting term for the power source is Fossil Fuel Substitutes or Agrofuels.
It cant be sustainably scaled beyond a few percent of existing jet fuel use.
According to the aviation industry, that simply isnt realistic.
The sector has also pointed to the social and economic benefits of SAF.
Like many airlines, Virgin Atlantic wants SAF to account for 10% of aviation fuel by 2030.
To achieve this goal, the airline is calling for more government investment.
Story byThomas Macaulay
Thomas is the managing editor of TNW.
He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers.
Away from work, he e(show all)Thomas is the managing editor of TNW.
He leads our coverage of European tech and oversees our talented team of writers.
Away from work, he enjoys playing chess (badly) and the guitar (even worse).
