European Airlines: Impact of Escalating Fuel Prices — Winners & Losers

As the crisis in the Middle East remains unresolved, fuel prices continue to rise worldwide. With this latest price shock showing no signs of subsiding, we asked Cognitive Credit AI to analyze the impact of escalating fuel prices on European Airlines, identifying the biggest winners and losers in the sector.

Escalating fuel prices represent the single largest variable cost risk for European airlines, accounting for 18–42% of total operating expenses depending on the carrier. The key differentiators in a rising fuel price environment are: (1) the structural fuel cost intensity of the business model, (2) the depth and forward horizon of the fuel hedging programme, and (3) long-haul route exposure to Middle Eastern airspace and oil supply chains linked to the Strait of Hormuz. Short-haul carriers with modern fleets and robust hedging are best positioned; legacy network carriers with high long-haul exposure and weaker or slower-building hedging face the greatest headwinds. 

1. Financial Baseline — Latest Available Metrics

All figures sourced from Cognitive Credit curated data (LTM or latest full year). Norwegian Air reports in NOK; all others in EUR.

Note: Air Baltic's leverage of 10.5x reflects its high aircraft lease-related debt load and small EBITDA base 

2. Fuel Cost Structure — Who Bears the Most Risk?

Key observations:

• Ryanair has the highest fuel cost as a share of operating expenses (~42%) but also the highest EBITDA margin (24.1% LTM), reflecting its ultra-lean non-fuel cost base and high aircraft utilisation. The Boeing 737-8200 "Gamechanger" fleet is delivering meaningful fuel burn improvements.

• Lufthansa has the lowest fuel intensity (~18% of opex) but also the lowest EBITDA margin (10.8%), reflecting its high structural cost base (staff, maintenance, multi-brand complexity). The €7.3bn absolute fuel bill is the largest in the peer group.

• IAG benefits from the highest EBITDA margin (23.0%) and a diversified revenue base (cargo, MRO, Avios loyalty), providing the most cushion against fuel shocks. Fuel costs fell 8.3% in FY25 on lower commodity prices.

• Norwegian Air has a surprisingly strong EBITDA margin (21.2%) and moderate fuel intensity (~32% of opex), but reports in NOK and has limited hedging depth (see below). 

3. Fuel Hedging Coverage — The Critical Differentiator

Hedging Programme Assessment

🟢 Best Protected:

• Ryanair maintains 77% coverage for FY26 at $774/MT, with a further 13% for FY27 at $685/MT. Fuel price sensitivity has declined to ~€1m per $1/MT change in FY25 (vs. €4.8m in FY24), reflecting both hedging depth and fleet efficiency gains from the 737-8200 Gamechanger.

• easyJet achieved 79% hedge coverage in FY25 at a post-hedge price of $761/MT, with a Board-approved rolling policy targeting 65–85% for the next 12 months and 45–65% for months 13–24. For 2H FY26, reports show that the hedge coverage is 70% at $706/MT.

• Air France-KLM has 62% coverage for FY26 with a hedged price of $778/MT but it does have a policy to hedge 24 months forward so they are likely to build coverage going into next year in case ongoing price escalation persists. Critically, the group has added crack spread instruments since 2022 to hedge the basis risk between crude oil (Brent) and refined jet fuel (Gasoil ICE, Jet CIF NWE) — a sophisticated approach that directly addresses a Hormuz-type supply disruption scenario where refinery margins widen independently of crude. Total nominal hedging commitments grew from €2.6bn (FY23) to €4.3bn (FY25).

🟡 Moderate Protection:

• Finnair provides the most granular hedging disclosure in the peer group. As of 1Q26, 82% of Q2 2026 fuel is hedged at $696/MT, declining to 62% on average across the next 12 months and to just 10–13% by early 2028. A 10% fuel price move impacts operating profit by €39m post-hedge (vs. €99m unhedged), implying ~61% hedge effectiveness. The programme uses forwards, swaps, and call options on a 24-month rolling basis.

• IAG operates a three-year rolling policy (extended from two years in FY25), with up to 75% coverage in the near term reducing to 20% in year three. As of FY25, the notional hedging book covers 10.0 million metric tonnes at an average rate of $670/MT within one year. The group’s latest disclosure shows 62% of the book hedged at $699/MT. The scale of the book and the extended horizon in the policy provide meaningful protection. IAG's 23% EBITDA margin provides the best earnings buffer in the peer group.

• Lufthansa targets up to 85% coverage with a rules-based monthly hedging programme (up to 4% of exposure per month over 24 months). The programme is disciplined but slow-building by design. For FY26, 77% of the company’s fuel is hedged at $846/MT. The hedging result was a €254m drag in FY25 (vs. €139m in FY24), indicating early that the group was hedged above market prices for the following year. The low EBITDA margin (10.8%) means any unhedged exposure hits harder than for peers.

• Norwegian Air has hedged ~45% of FY26 fuel consumption and ~25% of FY27, with a mandate to hedge up to 80% for the next 12 months. The programme is more developed than Air Baltic or TAP but less robust than the major carriers. Hedged prices are described as "close to current market prices," providing limited protection in a sharp spike scenario.

🔴 Most Exposed:

• TAP Air Portugal has an evolving active hedging position. As of 1H25, the company held no overhedge derivatives and fair value of fuel derivatives is only €1.9m unfavourable. A 10% increase in jet fuel prices would have raised 2025 fuel costs by 5.9%. TAP's hedging policy has since been described as "under review," reflecting the company's ongoing restructuring and privatisation process. Latest reports show that the hedging position has improved to 40% coverage for FY26 albeit at a higher price of €815/MT (estimated). A significant share of the hedge portfolio is structured with options-based strategies, avoiding full price lock-in and enabling participation in potential jet fuel price downside.

4. Strait of Hormuz Exposure — Route & Supply Chain Risk

No European airline explicitly quantifies Strait of Hormuz transit volumes in their financial disclosures. The following framework applies:

Direct Route Exposure

Indirect Fuel Supply Risk

The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately 20–21% of global oil trade. A disruption would:

• Spike Brent crude and jet fuel crack spreads — directly increasing unhedged fuel costs for all carriers

• Disrupt refinery supply chains — particularly affecting European refineries dependent on Gulf crude, widening the basis between crude and refined jet fuel

• Force route diversions — adding flight time and fuel burn for carriers operating Gulf/Asia routes (particularly Finnair, Lufthansa, IAG, Air France-KLM)

• Reduce demand — geopolitical escalation typically dampens corporate and leisure travel to affected regions

Air France-KLM has explicitly addressed the basis risk (crude vs. refined product) by adding crack spread hedging instruments since 2022 — the most direct hedge against a Hormuz-type supply shock in the peer group.

Finnair is uniquely exposed among the peer group: Asia routes represent ~34% of quarterly revenue, and the Helsinki hub's competitive advantage is precisely its position on the shortest Europe–Asia flight path, which transits airspace near the Gulf region. The Middle East revenue contribution has already declined sharply (from 5.8% in Q2 2024 to 1.5% in Q2 2025), partly reflecting geopolitical disruption effects.

Ryanair and easyJet acknowledge Middle East geopolitical risk as a general fuel supply disruption factor but have minimal direct route exposure. Their short-haul European networks are largely insulated from airspace closure risks. 

5. Winners and Losers — Key Takeaways

Winners in an Escalating Fuel Price Environment 

1. Ryanair — Best Positioned Overall

• Lowest non-fuel CASK in the sector; ultra-lean cost structure means fuel dominates but the rest of the base is minimal

• 77% of FY26 fuel hedged at $774/MT; sensitivity reduced to ~€1m per $1/MT change

• No meaningful Middle East/Asia route exposure

• Net cash position (-0.25x leverage) provides maximum financial flexibility

• Boeing 737-8200 Gamechanger fleet delivering structural fuel efficiency improvements

• Risk: Fuel is ~42% of opex; hedge roll-off at higher prices will be painful; FY27 forward book only 13% hedged at $685/MT

2. IAG — Best Earnings Buffer

• Highest EBITDA margin (23.0%) in the peer group provides the most cushion

• Diversified revenue (cargo, MRO, Avios loyalty) partially offsets fuel cost pressure

• Extended hedging horizon (up to 3 years). 62% of the FY26 book hedged at $699/MT.

• Strong FCF generation (€1.8bn in FY25); low leverage (0.78x)

• Risk: Large absolute fuel exposure (~€7bn/year); significant Middle East/Asia long-haul exposure

3. Air France-KLM — Crack Spread Hedging

• 62% hedging coverage in FY26 at $778/MT; book revolving for FY27 given 24 month forward hedging policy

• Crack spread hedging directly addresses Hormuz-type supply disruption risk

Risk: Structurally high cost base; FCF negative (-€1.0bn in FY25); leverage at 2.0x; significant Middle East/Asia long-haul exposure 

Losers / Most Vulnerable 

4. TAP Air Portugal — Highest Spot Price Exposure

• Near-zero active hedging as of 2025, however policy "under review" amid privatisation process

• Latest hedging position has improved to 40% coverage for FY26 albeit at a higher price of €815/MT

• Leverage at 2.91x with negative FCF (-€176m in FY25) limits financial flexibility

• Risk: High exposure to spot fuel prices; any sustained spike flows directly to the P&L; privatisation uncertainty adds execution risk

5. Air Baltic — Extreme Leverage + Weakest Hedging

• Only 10% of FY26 fuel hedged — the weakest coverage in the peer group

• High structural leverage (10.53x net debt/EBITDA) leaves no margin for error

• Negative FCF (-€110m in FY25); small EBITDA base (€124m)

• Carbon emission costs surged to €41m in FY25 (from €18.5m in FY24), compounding fuel cost pressure

• Risk: A sustained fuel price spike combined with high leverage could create a liquidity event; the state-owned company shelved its IPO plans in early 2026

6. Lufthansa — Structurally Challenged

• Lowest EBITDA margin (10.8%) in the peer group — least able to absorb fuel cost increases

• Largest absolute fuel bill (€7.3bn in FY25) in the peer group

• Significant Middle East/Asia route exposure (~10% of traffic revenue from Asia/Pacific)

• Rules-based monthly hedging programme builds slowly (4% per month)

• FCF negative (-€1.2bn in FY25); leverage at 3.12x

• Risk: Combination of low margins, high absolute fuel exposure, significant route exposure, and slow-building hedge coverage makes Lufthansa the most credit-sensitive legacy carrier to a fuel shock

7. Finnair — Unique Asia Route Vulnerability

• Asia routes represent ~34% of quarterly revenue — the highest Asia concentration in the peer group

• Helsinki hub's competitive advantage (shortest Europe–Asia routing) is also its key risk in a Hormuz/Gulf airspace disruption scenario

• Middle East revenue already declined sharply (5.8% → 1.5% of revenue) reflecting geopolitical disruption

• Hedging is relatively robust (69% for April-December 2026 at $696/MT) but leverage is moderate (2.63x) and FCF modest (€83m LTM)

• Risk: Route diversion costs and demand destruction from a Gulf crisis would hit Finnair disproportionately vs. peers

6. Summary Scorecard

Limitations & Notes

• Strait of Hormuz: No European airline explicitly discloses Strait of Hormuz transit volumes or quantifies the P&L impact of a closure scenario. Route exposure analysis is based on geographic revenue/capacity disclosures and geopolitical risk language in filings.

• Norwegian Air reports in NOK; revenue and EBITDA figures are not directly comparable to EUR-reporting peers without FX conversion.

• Air Baltic fuel cost (€38m) appears low in absolute terms due to its small fleet (~40 aircraft); the CASK-based analysis (24% of normalised CASK) is more meaningful for comparison.

• Lufthansa does not disclose actual achieved hedging coverage percentages, only target levels (up to 85%).
  IAG does not disclose specific coverage percentages; the notional book size and average hedge rate are the best available proxies.

• easyJet FY year-end: October (so FY25 = Oct 2024–Sep 2025)

• TAP Air Portugal is undergoing privatisation; hedging policy is in flux.

• This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

This analysis was generated by Cognitive Credit AI and verified by Cognitive Credit analysts. 

Want to try Cognitive Credit AI? Request a demo today.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on sector-level reasoning and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice. Specific issuer-level impacts will vary based on individual hedging programmes, contract structures, geographic exposure, and liquidity positions. Cognitive Credit's company-level financial data should be used for issuer-specific analysis.