United's newest livery "The Future is SAF"
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
I like the color scheme.
SAF seems like a reasonable idea, however I doubt there will ever be enough of it. Nonetheless, waste not want now. We might as well use what we have.
I just hope it doesn't become another ethanol mandate - where we put more energy in than we get back out, at a higher price.
SAF seems like a reasonable idea, however I doubt there will ever be enough of it. Nonetheless, waste not want now. We might as well use what we have.
I just hope it doesn't become another ethanol mandate - where we put more energy in than we get back out, at a higher price.
ExxonMobil and Exxon’s Canadian Subsidiary, Imperial Oil are going big into renewable fuels. The Canadian version is made from Canola oil.
The lobby money makes it a plus.
This is my fear.
Hey, we can all afford a couple hundred extra bucks for airline tickets if it's going to save the planet. <exaggeration/>
Has he made it the same as every other bus? Really?
I fly lots of other airlines. I get to see them all. My oldest daughter flies Delta, nearly exclusively. My youngest made the mistake of choosing Frontier last month, and when they stranded her, I got her out of there on United. She swears she won’t make that mistake again. She’s a smart kid, but has a tight budget.
I just bought (key word, bought) my wife a Polaris seat EWR GVA round trip. She was wowed by the experience, especially the Polaris lounge in EWR. It’s a great way to travel.
United’s product is better than its competitors, in my experience. I’ve seen them all. More destinations, better inflight entertainment, better luggage bins, better seats, more planes, Polaris, better options rebooking, better app, better information/communication with customers, free checked bags, elimination of change fees. Every single metric where the competition had an edge has been addressed.
Jet Blue built a first class for its 321 service to Europe. SWA has gone to assigned seats, matching United, but without the perks for frequent flyers, like economy plus or 1st class upgrades.
A high school classmate, a 2+ million mile 1K, got frustrated with United, said the same thing, 5 years ago. Went over to Delta. Came back in less than a year because they didn’t offer the frequency, destinations, communication, or product that he had been getting on United.
Choose an airline that meets your needs - my oldest lives in SLC, so I encouraged her to choose Delta, it was the logical choice. They run a good airline. So, if you’re better off with another company, so be it.
If your goal is to avoid spending your money until they have a contract, that’s a nice gesture, but even your considerable spending is just noise in the $40+ billion revenue stream unless you tell Scott directly. I support your feelings, I support those front line employees, too, but unless UAL leadership knows why you are flying the competition, it won’t have any effect.
But, I still recall this post, and hope you’ll come back.
Post in thread '737 max... what now?'
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/737-max-what-now.312547/post-5579354
The big one is converting sugar into jet fuel. A friend worked at a company called Amyris that was doing that using bioengineered yeast. They were able to do it, but it was never terribly cost effective. I recall they had a contract with Total to supply some jet fuels. However, the company went into a different market. They don’t even mention fuels in their company history timeline.
Synthesizing a hydrocarbon isn’t the issue. All that can be done in a lab. But how much energy will it take? That’s why the hope is pinned on a lot of the work being done by bacteria or yeast.
My friend, you are in a bubble. It's all good, I've been there too.
Scott Kirby is doing his job, he is beholden to the stockholders, and he is doing fine by them. You do make me laugh, do you think I and every other ex-customer has not tried to communicate with United? They don't listen, and they don't care, because as you say, my drop in the bucket means nothing to them. It does to me though, so I give it to someone else now.
The United international travel experience is not better than anyone else. That also makes me laugh. I flew United all my years going international due to the skill and training of the pilots, not for their experience. My co-workers flying the international airlines used to laugh at me. Polaris is fine, the lounges are fine. Not all of us peons have the bucks to pay for it. I did fly economy on Air China a few months ago. Service was great, flight was fine and on time.
You say you support the front line employees, but in the last post you said they are emotional and that's why they are in those positions. That's not support.
I now fly all airlines that meet my parameters for price and convenience. That includes United. I do know this, I'm an emotional salesperson, and when a long time loyal customer leaves, all my alarm bells go off and I find out why. I don't say, the stock price is great, all is well!
By the way, I've been flying Delta a ton lately. They could give lessons in customer service to the rest of the industry. Especially United.
Back to the topic though, 99% of the United customers don't care one bit about SAF. Just Wall Street. And the one off livery is pretty cool!
Delta built their own refinery years ago. Apparently they are now getting SAF from algae but it's 1% If not less of their overall fuel consumption. My only complaint is that if everything goes electric in aviation I won't be able to got to my local or international airport and smell the sweet smell of Jet A in the morning.
Growing up in the ’60s and ’70s shaped my perspective on design, giving me a different outlook compared to today.
Electric for airplanes is a pipe dream for anything over 100 miles. The weight of the batteries precludes anything farther, for a very long time to come. A passenger airplane needs fuel (charge) reserves and the ability to operate in all weather.
Jet fuel is extremely energy dense by volume and weight. Batteries are neither.
Delta bought the refinery - and it was a huge mistake. They’ve lost money on the whole deal.
It was a creative idea to hedge the cost of fuel, but their core competency is running an airline, and they haven’t run this well enough to make a difference.
But sticking to your core business, core competencies, is generally a good idea, rather than trying to run a complex technical operation outside that core.
I wondered about that. I didn't know that they lost money on their refinery. We could use a couple more refineries in Colorado as Suncor is the only one we have.
The entire 787 should be blue with white lettering.
The beauty of liquid fuel, regardless of the source, is the plane gets lighter with time.
We have lots of different liveries. At least a couple jets with the historic liveries of Continental and United, and then jets painted for various causes - like showcasing artists, or promotions, like the “Star Wars” jet with a lightsaber on its tail.
Or this one, that took the Broncos to the Super Bowl.
Or this one
From the press release.
“United Airlines has unveiled a colorful Boeing 757 paying tribute to the New York/New Jersey served from its Newark Liberty International Hub. Designed by artist Corinne Antonelli, the Boeing 757 features iconic imagery from the two states including the historic Red Mill in New Jersey, the New York City skyline and the Statue of Liberty. Ms. Antonelli designed the aircraft as part of United's Her Art Here contest, a competition that gave female artists a one-in-a kind chance to use an aircraft as their canvas.”
More on the Star Wars jet - the lightsaber was red on one side and blue on the other. Sith vs. Jedi. Empire vs. Rebels on the interior, too.
https://aeroxplorer.com/articles/the-famous-united-airlines-star-wars-plane-is-no-more.php
https://aeroxplorer.com/articles/the-famous-united-airlines-star-wars-plane-is-no-more.php
Batteries barely get lighter. The liquid fuel totally leaves the plane and it’s byproducts enter the atmosphere.All energy sources gets lighter as the energy is depleted. Pretty basic.
Batteries barely get lighter. The liquid fuel totally leaves the plane and it’s byproducts enter the atmosphere.
I'm just saying that technically mass-energy equivalence applies to any fuel source. Even a battery, however small that amount of mass converting to energy.
Most people think it applies to nuclear explosions, but it also applies to chemical reactions and electrochemical reactions.
Similar threads
- Sticky
