The crisis in the Middle East risks leaving not only Gulf carriers stranded, but also a significant part of European companies. According to the latest report from Scope Ratings, the real issue is no longer just the increase in kerosene prices, but the concrete possibility that the fuel may not arrive at airports at all.
For months, companies have tried to protect themselves from rising prices through hedging contracts. But the war changed the scenario. As Michel Bove, Corporate Ratings director of Scope, and Azza Chammem, associate director of the agency, explain, today the decisive variable is no longer who has blocked the price of jet fuel, but who will be able to physically procure it.
A carrier can be protected on paper from rising fuel costs, but still run out of kerosene if ships cannot reach terminals or ports no longer have sufficient reserves. In essence, price determines profitability, but it is access to fuel that decides whether a flight can go.
The Gulf weighs on European fuel
Europe enters this crisis with a structural vulnerability. In 2025, 43% of Europe’s jet fuel imports came from the Persian Gulf. Dependence is even stronger in Mediterranean countries, particularly Italy, Spain and Greece, which receive fuel by sea via the Suez Canal and the eastern Mediterranean.
This means that Southern European airports are the most exposed to possible interruptions in the logistics chain. On the contrary, Northern European hubs, such as London or Paris, can count on Atlantic refineries and onshore pipeline networks, making them relatively more protected. The UK also remains vulnerable: according to Scope, much of the jet fuel used by British airports depends on supplies from Kuwait.
Gulf companies remain the most fragile
The highest risk band includes Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways. The three major Gulf carriers find themselves in the heart of the crisis: in addition to the risks linked to the proximity of the conflict, there are those linked to supply at the departure airports themselves. Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi are under pressure and a worsening of the situation could result in sudden cancellations, delays and difficulties in re-securing passengers on other flights. For these companies the problem is not only avoiding the skies of conflict, but being able to have enough fuel to keep their hubs operational.
The boomerang for European companies
The crisis, however, is not limited to Gulf carriers. Scope also reports strong exposure for Turkish Airlines and the main European groups, in particular Lufthansa and Air France-Klm. In fact, these companies have between 35% and 44% of their capacity concentrated on Asia, Africa and intercontinental routes. This means that to avoid the areas affected by the conflict they are forced to divert their itineraries via Egypt or Central Asia.
Diversions can lengthen flights by one to two hours and, of course, the longer the route, the higher the fuel consumption. And in some cases intermediate technical stops for refueling may become necessary. But these airports also often depend on the same supplies from the Gulf which are now under pressure. If intermediate supply points were to go into difficulty, some routes to South-East Asia, South Asia and Oceania would risk being suspended.
Lufthansa’s alarm: “If the war continues there will be critical issues for flights”
Paradoxically, European groups are benefiting in the short term from the difficulties of their Gulf competitors: with Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways forced to reduce or cancel some flights, some passengers are moving towards European hubs. According to the Scope report, however, this is only a temporary advantage. The same routes that today guarantee greater revenues are in fact those most exposed to the risk of running out of fuel.
The position of Ita Airways
Ita Airways is placed in an intermediate risk band. The Italian company has a relatively balanced distribution of its capacity: 27% of flights are concentrated on Europe, 28% on the United States and 25% on the Americas. This means that there is not an excessive dependence on a single geographical area: this structure therefore makes Ita less linked to traffic towards Asia and the Middle East compared to the large European groups. However, the company remains vulnerable to a possible supply problem at Italian airports. Obviously, if more and more major airports such as Rome and Milan were to run out of fuel, Ita would also be forced to reduce operations and cut some routes.
Fuel rationed and flights at risk? What happens at airports, emergency plans and how to “save” your summer holidays
The carriers most protected from shocks
Among the companies considered less exposed are Iag – the group that controls British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vueling – and Scandinavian Airlines System (Sas). IAG presents a relatively balanced profile, with 34% of capacity concentrated in Europe, 29% towards the United States and 21% in the Americas. Within the group, Aer Lingus is strongly oriented towards transatlantic traffic, while Iberia focuses mainly on Latin America.
SAS, on the other hand, is the company with the least exposed structure: 68% of its capacity remains concentrated on intra-European traffic. A choice that limits the risk linked to the routes most exposed to the Middle East, even if it reduces the possibilities for growth. Airlines with greater exposure to routes to Asia and the Middle East essentially appear the most vulnerable today, especially if the war were to prolong. For passengers this means a greater likelihood of delays, cancellations and itinerary changes, particularly on long-haul flights. For companies, however, the crisis risks turning into a decisive test on the stability of the networks and the ability to guarantee operations in an increasingly unstable geopolitical scenario.