Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
JoseSalazar wrote:I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Virtue Signaling for fun and profit. Yet another climate-related indulgence.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Virtue Signaling for fun and profit. Yet another climate-related indulgence.
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
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.
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.
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.
JoseSalazar wrote:I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.
JoseSalazar wrote:I wonder if Scott Kirby will help me go green and donate to my Tesla fund.
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.)
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
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
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.”
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
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?
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.