Lufthansa Group has raised concerns about a blending quota for sustainable aviation fuels that was adopted as part of the EU's "Fit for 55" climate-protection package. The German airline group argues that both the quota and a proposing tightening of the Emissions Trading System create "unfair competitive conditions, as they primarily affect European airlines". The SAF quota, Lufthansa complains, unilaterally increases the costs of connecting flights through European hub airports, giving an advantage to airlines with hubs at the gateways of Europe, such as Istanbul or Doha. "This quota is detrimental in terms of both industrial and climate policy, as it merely shifts emissions instead of reducing transport-related CO2 emissions (carbon leakage)," adds the group. It estimates that biogenic SAF is about five times more expensive than fossil kerosene, while electricity-based fuels (power-to-liquid, or PtL) are up to 10 times more expensive, and warns that limited availability of biomass is likely to keep costs high. "If the fuel blending requirements increase in the EU over the years without a decrease of SAF prices, the gap between competitors will continue to widen," Lufthansa asserts. The group is urging the German government to take account of the EU harmonisation of PtL quotas and refrain from unilateral national initiatives before 2030, and wants the EU to review and redesign the SAF quotas to ensure a level playing field for airlines in the EU versus non-European competitors. "In addition, an EU-wide SAF funding programme is necessary," the group suggests, adding: "As an international climate-protection instrument, CORSIA must be systematically implemented and further developed. A global SAF quota would be the right instrument to ensure fair international competition and accelerate market development."

A US federal judge has rejected the Department of Justice's bid to restrict American Airlines and JetBlue from entering into new partnerships similar to their now-defunct Northeast Alliance (NEA)."The court finds such a prohibition is not necessary to achieve the appropriate aims of antitrust relief, which depend considerably on the particular circumstances of the case," states US District Court of Massachusetts judge Leo Sorokin in an order. "Here, those circumstances include the nature of the defendants' business models, the characteristics of the NEA agreements, and the specific geographic region and markets for air travel that were impacted by the defendants' conduct." Sorokin also rejected the Justice Department's proposal of a provision requiring notice and a waiting period if either defendant enters into any new agreements with other domestic carriers. Moreover, the judge rejected the Justice department's proposal to appoint an independent monitoring trustee, at the airlines' expense, who would "broadly oversee the unwinding of the defendants' relationship over the next five years". Sorokin states: "The defendants entered the NEA openly, disclosed it to regulators at the outset, cooperated with the resulting investigations, and have now terminated the relationship without waiting for the court's final judgment." "We are pleased the judge has rejected DOJ's arguments for unwarranted and unnecessary relief in his final order. Once the final order is in place, we will proceed with appealing a decision that we continue to believe misapplied the law and led to the dissolution of an alliance that delivered significant, quantifiable and durable consumer benefits." Earlier this month, American Airlines and JetBlue notified their customers that sales of codeshare flights through the Northeast Alliance would cease on 21 July, the first step in a winding-down process that will take place over the coming months. In May, Sorokin permanently enjoined American and JetBlue from continuing, and restrained from further implementing, their Northeast Alliance, ruling in favor of the Justice Department in its lawsuit alleging a loss of competition in the US northeast. New York-based JetBlue on 29 June notified American that it was declining to join the mainline carrier's appeal of the ruling that ordered their codeshare be dissolved.

India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) approved on 21 July Go First’s resumption plan but set out conditions that it must comply with so it can "commence operations as a going concern". "Scheduled flight operations can be commenced only after the availability of the required interim funding and approval of flight schedule by DGCA," according to a notification. In addition, ticket sales can only begin after the regulator approves of the schedule. At the same time, flight operations “shall be subject to the proceedings and/or outcomes in the ongoing CIRP [Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process] at NCLT [National Company Law Tribunal], Delhi and other writ petitions/applications by the Lessors of aircraft leased to Go First, which are pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and NCLT, Delhi,” says the regulator. The regulator approved the resumption plan dated 28 June after conducting a special safety audit from 4-6 July. Go First's flight operations have been suspended since 2 May, and the carrier entered into insolvency resolution on 10 May. Since then, the carrier has been embroiled in a legal tussle with lessors that are looking to deregister aircraft leased to the grounded carrier.