I guess it's one way to get your fuel costs down, ask for donations. Via PayPal no less. Will be interesting to see if other carriers ask as well. It makes sense to somebody.


https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/co ... 87#support

I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.

Can a publicly held corporation from the United States ask for "donations" for fuel?

This isn't Freddie Laker circa 1982...very strange indeed...I cannot imagine they would receive enough donations to supply taxi fuel for a Cessna 152.

VDemerest wrote:

Can a publicly held corporation from the United States ask for "donations" for fuel?

This isn't Freddie Laker circa 1982...very strange indeed...I cannot imagine they would receive enough donations to supply taxi fuel for a Cessna 152.

They indicated it is not tax deducible and "Donations may be used to purchase SAF from entities in which United holds an equity or other financial interest."

Amazing airlines asking for bailouts, donations and laying off staff. Nothing wrong with this. Just looks bad for PR not for UA itself. Great for UA financial goals.

Virtue Signaling for fun and profit. Yet another climate-related indulgence.

Their investment in SAF is admirable, but this is not the way to go about it.

JoseSalazar wrote:

I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.

Sir, please enjoy the Internet you have just won.

I sure people will gladly donate.Seems like the same thing as people who pay extra on their utility bill for "renewable" energy yet the renewable part accounts for maybe .001% of the power actually coming into their residence. Id rather donate to keep a classic aircraft flying

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Virtue Signaling for fun and profit. Yet another climate-related indulgence.

Paint it green and it's automatically ecofriendly!!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Virtue Signaling for fun and profit. Yet another climate-related indulgence.

and, if they want to do virtue signaling, they can do it on their own dime. That's what profits are for.

It's practically in the same section as buying carbon offsets and donating miles or money to a variety of other social causes, more established items that they've done for years. It's at the very bottom of their website, not all that easy to find. https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/co ... nship.html

I would agree that some people will buy into that, but most people will either be unaware due to the relatively obscure location or take a pass. Doesn't hurt to ask, but "no" is always a valid answer here for customers.

GofundME UA...I have a mortgage and an elderly Mother. Will breathlessly await your reply.

I think they would have better success by rephrasing it a bit. I also think a "match" would be the smarter way to go about it.

Something like: "United is already committed to purchasing 1.5 billion gallons sustainable aviation fuel, but you can help us grow that number. We will match dollar for dollar of your support for this promising breakthrough technology" That reads much better. I am surprised they went ahead with that copy honestly.

Same old recipe: Capitalize profits, socialize losses...

AndoAv8R wrote:

I sure people will gladly donate.Seems like the same thing as people who pay extra on their utility bill for "renewable" energy yet the renewable part accounts for maybe .001% of the power actually coming into their residence. Id rather donate to keep a classic aircraft flying

Or to help a hungry kid…
This is just virtue-signalling nonsense.

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think they would have better success by rephrasing it a bit. I also think a "match" would be the smarter way to go about it.

Something like: "United is already committed to purchasing 1.5 billion gallons sustainable aviation fuel, but you can help us grow that number. We will match dollar for dollar of your support for this promising breakthrough technology" That reads much better. I am surprised they went ahead with that copy honestly.

Yes or have donate to a charity. Donating to “ United Airlines, Inc” I am kinda shocked too actually this got through the PR dept.

I will "donate" to their fund, in the form of purchasing a fairly-priced ticket to a destination served by United at a competitive price.

I'd be more willing to donate to a fund for refurbishment of the tattered interior on the CRJ200 I flew on last week (or better yet, scrapping of those cursed things completely)

Lufthansa is nearing 2 million euros from customers for its program launched last year: https://lufthansa.compensaid.com/#tracking-section

A lot more donations towards SAF than offsets.

I. Have. No. Words.
One would think that a high school business class would figure that the optics on this initiative make it a no go. Yet highly educated & experienced C-suiters green light cyber-panhandling while bragging about their multi-billion enterprise. UA continues to be a "three steps forward, two steps back" operation.
Comedians should have a field day with this.

Good grief, this is a grift that would do an ex-US president proud. Maybe UA can run an ad fronted by Jim and Tammy-Faye Baker telling travellers it is a way to salvation. (Yes, I realise Tammy Faye isn't available.)

This is hilarious

Italianflyer wrote:

I. Have. No. Words.
One would think that a high school business class would figure that the optics on this initiative make it a no go. Yet highly educated & experienced C-suiters green light cyber-panhandling while bragging about their multi-billion enterprise. UA continues to be a "three steps forward, two steps back" operation.
Comedians should have a field day with this.

The joke is on you. This is actually a modestly clever way to see if people will pay for the 'green' they say they want. It's in the same vein of letting ticket-buyers pay for carbon offsets, with active programs run by more than 15 carriers on four continents, a practice that goes back to 2007.

This is allows UAL to say sustainable fuels is a "priority" to social media, just not a priority they are willing to spend a single dime on, in the grown up world.

If I may say so, this is classic Scott Kirby.

LCDFlight wrote:

This is allows UAL to say sustainable fuels is a "priority" to social media, just not a priority they are willing to spend a single dime on, in the grown up world.

If I may say so, this is classic Scott Kirby.

I do have to say that this one takes the cake. I remember when UA introduced their devalued Basic Economy product a few years ago Kirby was complaining about how Y customers weren't willing to spend enough money to make them worthwhile and that they essentially didn't care enough about the financial wellbeing of the company. I thought * that* was bad.

JoseSalazar wrote:

I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.

When I was a kid I asked my dad why we always flew HP (cheapest). He responded with "I'll fly someone more expensive when that airline starts giving a damn about *my* financial wellbeing".

Someone should ask Kirby how much he plans to donate to this fund, since he's trying to pretend like he cares about sustainability.

JoseSalazar wrote:

I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.

You beat me to it. That was going to be response.

These captains of industry are just incredible aren't they....

There are somethings I do.... I buy my eggs from a farm where the chickens run around in pasture all day... and they cost more.. but that's okay. I recycle my water from my aquarium and RO water filter (we have liquid rock here in AZ) so that it is the sole source of water for my small citrus trees... none of it going to waste. I try to use things for a long time... wear them out.... all small things... nothing I'd try to get likes for on social media. (shucks, i fully expect some of you to shame me for keeping a few fishes in a glass prison, eating eggs, and trying to save my copper plumbing.)

But I'll draw the line at subsidizing a millionaire's gas.

Folks this is just a precursor to the real ask - billions in subsidies from the US Treasury to either make or purchase SAF.

The CEO's have already gone to the White House to start the process.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2AQ2XG

One promising development is it may be possible to repurpose ethanol plants to make SAF. But we'll still need a lot of ethanol for the motor fuels which will still be produced for 20 to 25 more years. But that debate is for another thread

Anyone who "donates" to this cause needs to have their head evaluated by a proper mental doctor. The company (as well as all airlines these days and lots of families all over the world) have been on pogey - provided by the taxpayers. Now they are asking for "donations" that are not tax deductible? This has to be a joke?? Who thought this was a good idea??? Seems like a huge public relations kerfuffle if I've ever seen one!

The best part is the box you can check on PayPal to add more to your donation to "offset the processing fees"

I think the SAF is a noble cause and United has done some great work on this, but I agree, donating to a corporation that will use the funds to buy its fuel from companies it owns equity is a little tough to swallow. Just do it the old-fashion way and charge for it in the ticket and let the consumer decide to buy the seat or not. If you're going to accept donations it, should be to a non-profit, who is supporting this work. Not, as designated, simply United Airlines, Inc. I can't recall any other for-profit corporation that has publicly asked for donations from the general public to cover its operational costs.

Will be interesting to see how much gets donated at the end of the year when they say they will publish the amount.

Please do not "donate" to a for-profit corporation, especially one the U.S. taxpayer has already "donated" to in countless ways via tax loopholes, subsidies and literal direct cash bailouts.

Please. Just don't.

[list=][/list]

tullamarine wrote:

Good grief, this is a grift that would do an ex-US president proud. Maybe UA can run an ad fronted by Jim and Tammy-Faye Baker telling travellers it is a way to salvation. (Yes, I realise Tammy Faye isn't available.)

Tammy Faye Bakker was one person who initially sickened me with all the conspicuous consumption and clown makeup. Only to later redeem herself by becoming part of the Drag and Transgender community. She could relate to them, she didn’t give a hoot about WHAT they were, she cared about WHO they were. I was in the NYC club scene and she seemed extremely sincere and blew off criticism from her old crowd and said some very amazing things about love.

As for UNITED and this request for funding. I’m sad because it was so fabulous to see on the news before the digging started. I often feel a wee bit bad when I have my bed seat and my carbon footprint increases. I wished UA planted a tree in NEWARK every time I purchased a Polaris ticket. I’d rather pay a few bucks more per Polaris seating to go towards Eco Fuel. I have size 13 feet which much use an additional liter of fuel per LH & ULH!

They are usually more savvy than this. Who is UAL’s PR firm?

I wonder if they know about this link. Gofundme is probably the biggest and most well known on there. Does UA really know how much ridicule they are setting themselves up for?

https://www.crowdfunding.com/

Clearly not sustainable

So I donate to this 'adopt a 757 scheme' and I get a photo, tee-shirt, a badge, regular updates and the chance to fly to my chosen city several times a year, right ?

Aside from might be PR blowback, I do have some questions about bio fuels

As of today: does the biofuel United just flew the 737 with work with any engine type they have today, even some of their oldest aircraft?

Second, I know that sugarcane produces much more bio fuel than corn, but it’s been a political issue in the past because the “Corn Lobby” (gosh that sounds so silly when I just typed it out is so much more powerful than the “sugar lobbyists” because the USA grows so much more corn than sugar cane. It is totally flipped when compared to countries such a Brazil have a MASSIVE sugar cane Agricultural out put.

I once worked with a US Sugarcane grower’s collective and their primary problem was being smashed by the power of CORN collectives in the US. I had worked on a Failed campaign touting American Sugar (Branding it like Colombian Coffee or Florida OJ) it’s not easy to brand such commodities unless there is a serious big origin story)

I wonder if the USA can strengthen its trade ties with Brazil (#1 in the world of sugarcane production) and without cutting down more of the Amazon!

Does anyone know if this flight was power by fuel produced by waste animal/cooking fats or with biomass?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Folks this is just a precursor to the real ask - billions in subsidies from the US Treasury to either make or purchase SAF.

The CEO's have already gone to the White House to start the process.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2AQ2XG

One promising development is it may be possible to repurpose ethanol plants to make SAF. But we'll still need a lot of ethanol for the motor fuels which will still be produced for 20 to 25 more years. But that debate is for another thread

Of course they have.

Far easier to push the problem onto government and other industries.

We've done our bit, now produce us the magic pixie dust, the unicorn farts, so we don't have to change how we do business at all.

'Sustainable' doesn't mean 'pollution free', by the way.

I'm not sure about 'needing' ethanol for motor fuels. It's completely cost-uncompetitive with gasoline, and exists in the market only because of Federal mandates starting with Bush's signature on the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Sixteen years later it's clear that a better path to decarbonizing light vehicle transport is renewables-powered EVs. Fifteen states already get 28-99% of their electricity from renewables.

But, yeah, Revelation has it right: make the Federal government responsible for harvesting unicorn farts and butterfly tears by the billions of gallons.

Actually ethanol in small amounts(less than 10%) is needed in gasoline to boost octane levels. Refiners used to use tetraethyllead (leaded fuel). That got banned and was replaced with Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). That got banned and was replaced by a small percentage of ethanol. People buying gasoline power cars and trucks today and the next couple of years (92 percent of this years sales of light vehicles including pickups and SUVs) will be operating them well into 2030 plus.

I too really don't see the advantage of SAF. Better option would be utilizing just the most efficient aircraft (A220 foe example) and fewer flights

Boof02671 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Actually ethanol in small amounts(less than 10%) is needed in gasoline to boost octane levels. Refiners used to use tetraethyllead (leaded fuel). That got banned and was replaced with Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). That got banned and was replaced by a small percentage of ethanol. People buying gasoline power cars and trucks today and the next couple of years (92 percent of this years sales of light vehicles including pickups and SUVs) will be operating them well into 2030 plus.

I too really don't see the advantage of SAF. Better option would be utilizing just the most efficient aircraft (A220 foe example) and fewer flights

I don’t think Ethanol boots octane as the ethanol free gas has the same or higher octanes as ethanol

I believe it’s done for emissions:

“ Ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel that is distilled from plant materials, namely sugar and corn. ... Ethanol is used as an additive in gasoline to help oxygenate the gas, causing the fuel to burn completely. Thus, ethanol-infused gases produce cleaner emissions, leading to better air quality.”

Indeed…Ethanol has much lower potential energy content per unit volume than gasoline, but does burn much cleaner.

Autos get lower mpg using 10% ethanol fuel than straight gasoline, but also lower emissions per mile covered.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I too really don't see the advantage of SAF. Better option would be utilizing just the most efficient aircraft (A220 foe example) and fewer flights

Good point. How many of these United "eco-friendly" flights are negated by ferrying just one empty 777 across the Pacific to have a communist country (with a very poor record of emissions control) perform maintenance?

jetblastdubai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I too really don't see the advantage of SAF. Better option would be utilizing just the most efficient aircraft (A220 foe example) and fewer flights

Good point. How many of these United "eco-friendly" flights are negated by ferrying just one empty 777 across the Pacific to have a communist country (with a very poor record of emissions control) perform maintenance?

Great example, it’s all social media emotional response driven vs actual reality.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Italianflyer wrote:

I. Have. No. Words.
One would think that a high school business class would figure that the optics on this initiative make it a no go. Yet highly educated & experienced C-suiters green light cyber-panhandling while bragging about their multi-billion enterprise. UA continues to be a "three steps forward, two steps back" operation.
Comedians should have a field day with this.

The joke is on you. This is actually a modestly clever way to see if people will pay for the 'green' they say they want. It's in the same vein of letting ticket-buyers pay for carbon offsets, with active programs run by more than 15 carriers on four continents, a practice that goes back to 2007.

I would say yes and no.

Yes in that, it's not the first rodeo for Kirby to do something like this. Remember the purchasing of in-flight beverages during this time at US (post-HP merger) in the late 2000s? That is what this reminds me of, although he's going at it at a creative way.

No in that, marketing/PR departments will need to take a hard look at emerging trends in virtue signaling, regardless at what end of the political spectrum they sit on, and how they want to message that going forward. It's not a good corporate look.

What a joke, but not as bad as AA asking employees to volunteer their time at work.

Quote - "I believe it’s done for emissions:

Ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel that is distilled from plant materials, namely sugar and corn. ... Ethanol is used as an additive in gasoline to help oxygenate the gas, causing the fuel to burn completely. Thus, ethanol-infused gases produce cleaner emissions, leading to better air quality.”[/quote]

You are correct. MTBE was both an octane booster and an oxygenate. Ethanol is a oxygenate too but is not a octane booster. Refiners are now adding additional processing to raise octane levels.

That being said, ethanol will still be needed as a pollution reduction element in all future production of gasoline. Unless a new oxygenate is developed. Just won't be at the 10 to 15% we see now.