
Transavia
Transavia is rated a poor airline for sustainability based in Netherlands. See its verified eco rating and review to help you choose greener flights in Europe.
We may earn an affiliate from this sale.
Every measure, scored
Who owns it
Fuel and fleet
Booking
Contact
Confirmed at the source
| Measure | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainable fuel in use | not published | no source recorded |
| Sustainable fuel target 2030 | not published | no source recorded |
| Science based target | not published | no source recorded |
| Net zero target | 2050 | flypgs.com checked 25 Aug 2026 |
| Contrails and non CO2 warming | not published | no source recorded |
| Independent efficiency rating (atmosfair) | not published | no source recorded |
| CO2 per passenger km | 57.1g | cnn.com checked 25 Aug 2026 |
| Fleet average age | 5.3 years | flypgs.com |
| Next generation aircraft | not published | no source recorded |
| Load factor | not published | no source recorded |
| Fuel tankering | not published | no source recorded |
| Single use plastic | not published | no source recorded |
| Catering sourced locally | not published | no source recorded |
Every certifier this Airline claims, with a direct link to the proof where it exists, or flagged where it is only The airline’s word.
Scored 25 of 100 points, which is 25% and a band of 2 out of 5 (Below average). Sustainable fuel in use: 0 of 18 points. Figure: not disclosed. Why: Scored against 5% of fuel uplift for full marks. The global average is under 1%, so 5% is genuinely leading rather than arbitrary. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Contrails and non CO2 warming: 0 of 15 points. Figure: not disclosed. Why: Around two thirds of aviation warming is not CO2, mostly contrails, and just 3% of flights cause 80% of contrail warming. Rerouting around the regions where they form costs roughly 1 to 4 euro a ticket, so an airline doing it is making a real choice. No other airline ranking scores this. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Independent efficiency rating: 0 of 12 points. Figure: not rated. Why: atmosfair rates the 200 largest airlines on CO2 efficiency points from 0 to 100, covering about 92% of global traffic. It is the one figure here that does not come from the airline itself. No airline has yet reached class A or B. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Fuel tankering: 0 of 6 points. Figure: not disclosed. Why: Carrying extra fuel to avoid buying it at the destination burns more fuel to save money. About one in five European flights involves some tankering, adding roughly 902,000 tonnes of CO2 a year across the continent. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Science based target: 0 of 15 points. Figure: no validated target. Why: A target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative scores full marks. One held only at group level scores 12 of 20, because it is not a commitment this airline is held to. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Net zero target: 3 of 5 points. Figure: 2050, published by the airline. Why: 2040 or earlier scores full marks, 2050 scores 3, later scores 1. A target the airline has not published itself, covered only by the IATA industry resolution, is capped at 1 because a trade body resolution is not a company commitment. Source: https://www.flypgs.com/en/sustainability Fleet age: 10 of 10 points. Figure: 5.3 years average. Why: Seven years or under scores full marks. A newer airframe burns materially less fuel, which is the single biggest lever an airline actually controls. Source: https://www.flypgs.com/en/sustainability CO2 per passenger km: 12 of 12 points. Figure: 57.1 g. Why: 75g or under scores full marks. This is the only figure that compares two airlines like for like on the same route, and almost none publish it. Source: https://www.cnn.com/travel/world-most-eco-conscious-airlines-cmd Single use plastic: 0 of 4 points. Figure: not disclosed. Why: Eliminated scores full marks, reduced scores 6, a stated position with no detail scores 3. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Onboard catering sourcing: 0 of 3 points. Figure: not disclosed. Why: Local or farm to table sourcing scores full marks. Hardly any airline discloses this, so it separates the ones that have actually looked. Source: none recorded, so this measure scores zero rather than being estimated Scoring zero for want of a sourced figure: Sustainable fuel in use, Contrails and non CO2 warming, Fuel tankering, Single use plastic, Onboard catering sourcing.
Compare
A peek at the leaderboard
Build a list of the farms and markets you love with their days and opening hours. Sign up free to keep it across your phone and laptop.
Create a free accountUnlock the Vitality Planner, seasonal food guides and full product data, the tools that turn a market trip into a routine.
Start 3-day free trialthen £9.99 / month, £27.99 / 3 months, or £59.99 / year (founding). Cancel anytime.
No. A European Commission review found 98% of offsetting schemes support projects that would have happened anyway, and consumer groups have filed a joint greenwashing complaint against 17 airlines over carbon neutral claims. Offsets are treated as a risk flag here, not a credit.
Source: e360.yale.edu
More than which airline you pick. A business class seat carries roughly three times the emissions of an economy seat on the same flight, and first class about nine times, because the seat takes up more of the aircraft.
Source: climateactionaccelerator.org
Yes. Take off and landing account for about a quarter of a flight emissions, so a non stop saves roughly 20% against a one stop on the same journey.
Source: climateactionaccelerator.org
Because around two thirds of aviation warming is not CO2, and mostly contrails. Just 3% of flights cause 80% of contrail warming, and rerouting around the regions where they form costs about 1 to 4 euro a ticket. The EU started monitoring non CO2 effects on intra EU flights in 2025.
Source: transportenvironment.org

Transavia is rated a poor airline for sustainability based in Netherlands. See its verified eco rating and review to help you choose greener flights in Europe.

Ural Airlines is rated a poor airline for sustainability based in Russian Federation. See its verified eco rating and review to help you choose greener flights in Europe.

SunExpress is rated a poor airline for sustainability based in Türkiye. See its verified eco rating and review to help you choose greener flights in Europe.
The complete data behind the score
Read from the airline own site: "wards a Young Future We operate one of the youngest aircraft fleets in the world, with an average fleet age of 5.3 years We operate one of the youngest aircraft fleets in the world, with an average fleet age of" (https://www.flypgs.com/en/sustainability). Read from the airline own site: "us Airlines continues to grow and to implement environmentally friendly projects. Towards Net Zero We aim to achieve net zero carbon emissions in 2050 by identifying the best outcomes for society and the environment. Towards a Cle" (https://www.flypgs.com/en/sustainability). Identity confirmed against the IATA member register. Not yet verified from a named source: SAF share, science based target status, net zero year, fleet average age, next generation share, CO2 per passenger km, single use plastic position and catering sourcing.
Not yet checked for Pegasus Airlines.
Source: no source recorded
Members get live discount codes on verified Airlines. Register and we’ll show you your code before you check out.
See this airline beside the others in its group and alliance before you decide who to fly.