Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Earth Power

United Airlines Hopes to Use Electric Planes for Flights Under 200 Miles By 2030 (futurism.com) 108

Posted by EditorDavid from the high-hopes dept.
It's one of the largest airlines in the world. But now Futurism reports that United Airlines "is projecting it could have electric powered commercial flights by the tail end of this decade, potentially laying the groundwork for a much more environmentally friendly future for air travel." "Initially we want to fly on routes that are 200 miles or less," Mike Leskinen, president of United Airlines Ventures, told CNBC [at CNBC's ESG Impact Virtual Conference on Thursday]. "But as that energy density increases, that same aircraft will have a range of 250 miles, 300 miles, which is going to give us a lot more utility here connecting our hubs."

In other words, the battery-powered planes will get a chance to prove themselves in regional, short-haul flights, according to Leskinen.

United set their plans in motion last year, purchasing 100 battery-powered planes that can seat 19 passengers from the Swedish startup Heart Aerospace. Its founder Anders Forslund, who also attended the conference, said that the planes will be able to recharge in "under half an hour," which is about on par with industry standards. The airplane won't be taking off any time soon, however, as it still requires certification, but Forslund predicts they'll get approval by 2028.

For the long-haul flights, United has already announced plans to use sustainable fuel in its efforts to be carbon neutral by 2050.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

United Airlines Hopes to Use Electric Planes for Flights Under 200 Miles By 2030 More

United Airlines Hopes to Use Electric Planes for Flights Under 200 Miles By 2030

Comments Filter:

  • how will the FAA control the battery meter?
    So that is can get an true reading and not have big drops on used battery's?
    Will they mandate battery swaps after X hours / miles / chargers?
    What will the bingo battery point be?

    • other question is on end of that would be delays in being able to land. I know 200 miles shouldn't be an issue but right now planes do carry a bit extra fuel to fly much longer then distance they are going.

    • Re:how will the FAA control the battery meter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Sunday October 09, 2022 @11:53PM (#62952229) Homepage

      The FAA will control the battery meter the same way the FAA controls anything else on a plane: by requiring a rigorous certification that it will work reliably and fail safely (almost all the time, for a value of "almost" that depends on the safety effect), normally by applying standards (typically called "guidance") for the development processes that are well-understood in the aviation community. See, for example, FAA's AC 25.1309â"1 -- preferably the Arsenal Draft for this purpose, although Rev A is technically the one in effect. SAE ARP4754A would get used at the aircraft and system levels, RTCA DO-178C and DO-254 at the item levels.

    • Jesus H. Christ.... It's BATTERIES.

    • Re:how will the FAA control the battery meter? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @02:18AM (#62952419)

      Are you genuinely curious or are you posing these questions as some philosophically unanswerable problem?

      The answer to your 1st, 3rd, and 4th question is the same way the FAA controls and certifies every other component on the plane based on the design and degradation during operation.

      The answer to the second 2nd question is that this isn't your mobile phone. It's not hard to accurately monitor and predict battery life down to the Watt-hour, and bonus points since a full battery doesn't weigh more than an empty one you no longer need to do a calculation to figure out the optimum amount of fuel to carry, just charge a certified good for service battery pack to full and go.

    • "So that is can get an true reading and not have big drops on used battery's?"

      This is a plane, if the batteries drop, so does the plane.

    • Already a huge number of parts on aircraft are subject to testing requirements and mandatory swaps after their service life is up. It's hard to imagine batteries and the associated meters would be any different. As part of the certification process the manufacturer will work with the FAA to develop maintenance standards that mandate testing and replacement at specific intervals and then airlines using the planes will be required to follow them.
    • Or, to put your question the other way, will the aviation industry change their conservative, risk-averse engineering standards just because it's batteries?

      Personally, I'd expect the batteries to come in modules the size (conveniently?) of the current luggage racks, for swapping charged- for flat- batteries in a way that fits well with existing airport operations, such as luggage handling. Whether they change every flight, or on a tested flight circuit (A to B, B to C, C to D, D to A ; change batteries at

  • By air about 130 miles from Seatac to Portland, 265 to Coeur D'alene ID, 140 to Vancouver BC, 235 to Spokane. It would probably help keep prices more stable with out the constant rising fuel prices.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by butlerm ( 3112 )

      There are many routes that are 250 miles or less, but how many of them normally carry no more than nineteen passengers?

      • Re:Sea-Tac has many flights under 250 miles (Score:4, Funny)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @01:41AM (#62952381)

        how many of them normally carry no more than nineteen passengers?

        If a route has more potential passengers than the plane's capacity, an obvious solution is to use more than one plane. Perhaps they could even have different departure times and different flight numbers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by butlerm ( 3112 )

          Serving a major route with planes that only carry 19 passengers would be like trying to fight a forest fire with hummingbirds. There aren't enough landing slots available and it would be cost inefficient and uncompetitive.

          • I'd argue that making this argument is a form of the Nirvana fallacy - There is no doubt that there are lots of routes a ~19 passenger aircraft with 250 miles of range can service.

            If nothing else, consider the effects of going from the current "hub and spoke" system to more of a web. Rather than using huge aircraft at a few airports, use smaller aircraft to less busy airports on more direct routes.

            More direct flights if your destination is under 250 miles away.

            But in the end you'd want to keep the larger a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by butlerm ( 3112 )

              My point is merely that this is not likely to hit the big time until they can figure out how to build electric planes that carry more passengers. Efficiency concerns.

              • Eh...

                I wouldn't expect the FIRST EV plane to be a big one. While I say there "shouldn't be any reason" you can't scale up a battery system to give you more passengers and range, I will fully acknowledge that to do so would present many engineering challenges.

                So step 1 would be the EV Cessna, essentially. This gives you the start on figuring out where the practical differs from the theoretical.
                Step 2 is basically this, the 19 passenger aircraft. Not too big, not a huge investment (if the planes fall throu

        • Except that runway capacity is limited.

    • It would probably help keep prices more stable with out the constant rising fuel prices.

      Nope. Electric prices are driven at least in part by fuel prices. (Also by other factors - such as the massive boost in demand as electric cars, trucks, and now airplanes are deployed.)

      So, if anything, the "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

      • Electric prices are driven at least in part by fuel prices.

        I wouldn't think much.
        Are there any power sources we use that directly depend on crude oil, like fuel does?

        So, if anything, the "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

        I don't follow this logic.

        It should also be noted that Seattle's electricity prices almost certainly have very near zero to do with the price of oil/fuel.
        Of course, Seattle is the rest of the world, or even the rest of the US.

        • Bah.
          *is not the rest of the world

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
            Slightly unrelated, but I was shocked to see the cost difference of gas in Seattle vs Dallas: $5.58/gal (Seattle) vs $3.24/gal (Dallas).

            Interestingly, the electricity rates are lower in Seattle compared to Dallas: 11.8 / kWh (Seattle) vs 13.3 / kWh (Dallas).

            It's a wild world!

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
              (The unit in the numerator is U.S. cents)
            • Ya, our dams don't require a lot of crude oil to keep running ;)

              As for the price of gas, it's always been pretty high up here.
              Taxes are a part of it, of course, but they can't explain the entire price. We have local refinery capacity.

              I think it's probably just because the base cost of doing business for gas stations is higher up here. We make more money, and things are more expensive.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                The whole west coast uses a special mix of gasoline for lower CO2 emissions, which is part of the high prices and also means we're dependent on western refineries, some of which are closed for maintenance.
                Cost in Vancouver is close to C$2.40 a litre and keeps going up.
                Part of it is also making sure the oil company executives can buy the latest in yachts as well.

        • They are legally driven by gas prices in the UK, even if generated by wind or solar!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        So, if anything, the "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

        I don't quite understand the logical leap here. Why would "electric fuel" costs be expected to climb more/faster than liquid fuel prices? You never actually give a reason.

        • So, if anything, the "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

          I don't quite understand the logical leap here. Why would "electric fuel" costs be expected to climb more/faster than liquid fuel prices? You never actually give a reason.

          I explained it in the immediately preceeding two sentences:

          Electric prices are driven .... (Also by other factors - such as the massive boost in demand as electric cars, trucks, and now airplanes are deployed.)

          A typical single-famil

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tragedy ( 27079 )

            I explained it in the immediately preceeding two sentences:

            That was not an explanation. While it is a given that fuel prices have some influence on electricity prices, you don't delve into why and how and you certainly don't address why they would increase. What's generally known is that, if all cars switched to electric all of a sudden (with the gradual changes to infrastructure also magically happening suddenly), electricity usage would increase about 25%. At the same time though gasoline usage would plummet to almost nothing. If you can demonstrate, for example,

      • "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

        Not true. Electricity prices fluctuate far less than jet fuel.

        Also, electric engines are much more efficient. ~90% vs ~40% for jets.

        So energy is a much smaller component of the operating cost.

        Even cheaper if the batteries can be recharged with off-peak baseload.

        • "electric fuel" costs can be expected to climb even more/faster than liquid fuel prices.

          Not true. Electricity prices fluctuate far less than jet fuel.

          Also, electric engines are much more efficient. ~90% vs ~40% for jets.

          So energy is a much smaller component of the operating cost.

          Even cheaper if the batteries can be recharged with off-peak baseload.

          Why are you ruining his ideologically motivated fantasising with 'facts'??

    • Re:Sea-Tac has many flights under 250 miles (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @01:04AM (#62952315) Journal
      Those are good distances for high speed rail, faster and cheaper and less stressful than flying.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        Rail might be nice, but this is the US we're talking about. High speed rail projects tend to just die in the US. Also, some of those routes are also across quite mountainous terrain or you have to go across or around a lot of water.

      • Well why don't YOU try to build a rail project, or any major infrastructure project, in a rich world democracy? A part of the London underground has been getting progressively hotter for decades, to the point where they need AC for an underground tunnel, and they still haven't fixed it no matter the government in charge. And it's just one line. Now imagine trying to actually build a train line.

        • Please don't confuse the problems in London and the USA with "rich-world democracy". There are plenty of wealthy nations with excellent rail-based infrastructure which is constantly being expanded.

          E.g. Eurostar has been expanded to Rotterdam and Amsterdam cutting the trip time by 30+ min due to no more overlay at Brussels. New night trains between Amsterdam and Venice, Vienna, Hanover, Berlin, Dresden making it a very attractive alternative to flying. The high speed rail lines all over the world are under c

          • Re:Sea-Tac has many flights under 250 miles (Score:4, Informative)

            by Malc ( 1751 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @06:18AM (#62952693)

            London by Amsterdam isn't a great example of a train route given how long it takes compared to flying. I use Eurostar a lot, but flying LCY-AMS is way more convenient.

            The UK isn't a great example of expanding rail either. Look at the HS2 project: moronically doesn't connect to HS1 (hello: Manchester to Paris on one train?), besieged by delays, cost overruns, extreme political resistance and cuts to the planned route.

            When did they drop the stop in Brussels? We took the Eurostar to Rotterdam for the Queen's Jubilee holiday and it definitely stopped in Brussels.

            • "Look at the HS2 project: moronically doesn't connect to HS1 (hello: Manchester to Paris on one train?)"

              What you'd gain from through running Manchester to Paris is much less than what you'd lose on Manchester to London which is where the more immediate capacity needs are.

              Remember, LGV Interconnexion Est didn't open until 13 years after LGV Sud-Est.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          A part of the London underground has been getting progressively hotter for decades, to the point where they need AC for an underground tunnel

          Most of that is because those trains use older tech that converts kinetic energy into heat in order to slow down.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pjt33 ( 739471 )

          Take, for example, the London Underground, which opened a new line less than six months ago... Sometimes new build is easier than fixing problems in infrastructure that's over a century old and has millions of daily users.

      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Trains vs planes.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Certain countries seem unable to build high speed rail though. For various political and/or legal reasons it just doesn't get done.

        It's a problem that would be worth solving, but I have no idea how to do it. Speaking about the UK because that's where I'm familiar with, it's mostly down to corruption and politicians reneging on promises. The corruption makes the cost spiral out of control, and the inevitable reneging follows as politicians seek to cut costs. Of course at the time they promised it, they hadn'

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Malc ( 1751 )

          If the corruption is so widespread and severe, why isn't it being prosecuted?

          Are your numbers for the costs adjusted to inflation? It seems that a large part of those costs are related to land prices, which have gone up over time, and this exacerbated by delays. Is it true that the original costs didn't include the rolling stock? I.e. perhaps a budgeting error? Can you put a GBP amount on the actual amount that can be directly attributable to corruption?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            The corruption is the government giving very favourable contracts to friends, who in turn donate to the Conservative Party. It's not illegal.

            A few years ago the Chinese said they could build the whole thing for us, for 5bn GBP.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Malc ( 1751 )

              Surely a lot of the contracts were signed when Labour were in power?

              £5B's not believable either, unless they were planning to take land away without compensating the current landowners. What was the non-monetary cost to the UK and its dependence on China going to be? Did that price include building the rolling stock (£1.5B at 2012 prices + the economic benefits to the Derby and Crewe communities)?

              • Well, Labour has not been in power for the past 12 years, you'd assume any competent government would have fixed those mishandled contracts by now.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                I think it was 5bn just got the track and stations, but still...

                Most if the construction contracts were under the Tories.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ubi_NL ( 313657 )

        also in many countries those trains are already electric...

  • Lots of problems, lots of questions... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bkmoore ( 1910118 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @01:45AM (#62952385)
    My first reaction was where will United or their regional subsidiary find the pilots to operate such an airplane. Regionals have pretty much phased out all of the sub- 50 seater airplanes. This airplane will carry 19 passengers over 200 miles, therefore requiring TWO pilots, both must hold an ATP certificate, requiring a minimum of 1500 flight hours. The pilot in command must have a minimum of 2500 flight hours, 1000 of which is as a first officer in a part-121 operation. The regionals cannot find enough qualified pilots that meet those requirements to fly their 76-seaters on 500 to 1000 mile routes, so where will they find pilots to fly a 19-seater? Also the days where regionals basically paid their pilots nothing in exchange for flight hours and a chance to someday fly for the big boys are long gone. Starting wages at a regional airline are now $90 to $100 per hour for a new first officer, the captain makes closer to $200 per hour, trending upwards... How are these economics supposed to work on a 19-seater? Getting the FAA to change the pilot experience rules or allow single-pilot part 121 operations? Good luck, it's not going to happen. Only Congress could change those rules, and the politician who changes the rules will get blamed for the next Colgan-Type Air disaster.

    My second reaction is the engineering challenge. Transport- category aircraft are designed to burn fuel and become lighter as the flight progresses. The whole structure is designed around many assumptions, for example the landing weight will be less than the takeoff weight, or that they are designed to either take a maximum cargo, or maximum fuel load, or some combination of the two, but you can never carry both a maximum cargo and a maximum fuel load. I remember from my college days, a rule of thumb in airplane design was a 10% increase in empty structural weight would result in a reduction of range of about 30%. A battery-powered airplane will have a constant weight throughout the flight, your'e basically always flying with the weight equivalent of a full fuel load. Many of the engineering optimizations that would normally be made on a fuel-burning aircraft cannot be made on a battery-powered airplane. It's not hard to see that the weight could quickly spiral out of control, ending up with an airplane that cannot carry a useful load over a useful distance. Weight is the enemy of any airplane designer

    I think a battery-powered transport aircraft would be significant engineering challenge for even the most experienced aircraft designers, especially with current battery technology. But this airplane is being designed by a startup with no proven track record in aircraft design. My question is how many airplanes has this designer constructed and flown? How will he keep the weight under control? Is the design even feasible with current battery technologies? How many kV hours will this airplane require at a maximum load over 200 miles + 30 minute reserve at causing speed as required by FAR 121? How much will the battery weigh? None of the articles I have seen on this project answer any of these questions. Maybe finding qualified pilots will be irrelevant if the airplane is too heavy to carry any passengers or cargo. I've been in aviation for a very long time. I've seen many seemingly good ideas that never got off the ground. Maybe I'm just turning into an old man, but unless battery technologies significantly improve, I don't think this airplane will fly either.

    • if you have no confidence in him, have a look at ALICE EV plane by Eviation [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The weight issue is getting better all the time, and aircraft aren't cheap so can afford to use the higher density chemistries like Li-NMC (300Wh/kg). Obviously it's not going to be as good as fossil fuels, but it's manageable.

      Maybe they are planning to pay pilots more. A few hundred bucks more on crew for a flight will be more than offset by savings. A twin turbo prop short haul aircraft costs about $1,200/hour to operate, half of which is fuel. Probably more than half now, and the ratio will keep getting

    • Charging time = 2 days. Flight time = 2 minutes.

    • I like to call these kind of projects "hyper engineering". Fairy tale projects, fueled by popular excitement. Completely detached from reality.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Did you see the article [slashdot.org] yesterday about California's difficulties in trying to build a rail line? They're trying but it's not happening.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      not sure about a 19 seater but I do see potential for THIS sort of aircraft for 200mi flight. https://lilium.com/ [lilium.com]
    • Its just a PR statement, green washing. It will get environmentalists off their back and as 2030 approaches the date will be pushed back.

      8 years is not long enough to develop, test and get approval for such experimental technology. And o course as you mentioned train up air and ground crews. Not in passenger flight. They might redefine the 2030 goal as for cargo not passengers. Still 2030 its probably overly ambitious for cargo too.

      Politics can't make science and engineering go faster short of moonsho

  • Why fly 200 miles? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't understand why someone would choose to fly such a short flight. The flight itself will probably take an hour. Add, say, 15 minutes for taxiing, add the hour you're supposed to be at the airport before the flight leaves, and add the time needed to get to and from the airport. Add to that the cost of the flight (certainly more than the cost of driving), and the cost of getting to the airport (taxi, parking, imposing on family or friends), transportation while you're at your remote destination (car

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      I don't understand why someone would choose to fly such a short flight.

      geography, e.g. islands: barcelona - plama de mallorca is a very busy connection with a 45 minute plane trip over less than 200 miles, because the alternative is 9-12 hours on a ferry.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      You may have partially answered your own question with the observation about getting to the airport: if your nearest major airport is 200 miles away, a short hop flight from a local airport might be the most convenient way of doing it. I've flown 195 mile legs on international trips: a longer flight into the capital and then a short hop to the city I was actually visiting.

      • There is a dream I think both Sweden, Norway and Finland share, of revitalizing regional air travel by going electric. We have relatively large distances between population centres, especially in the north, and lots of cold war era air strips, many of which are not (or no longer) useful for big and/or noisy aircraft.
    • For me its the free parking at the regional airport versus $7 per day at the main airport. 1 or 2 weeks of free parking adds up. Also no: traffic, long security lines etc...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      You are assuming that 200 miles is the entire trip. Usually, it isn't. Let's say I want to go from Albany, NY to London. My choice is I drive to JFK (probably close to 3 hours), get there several hours early as you mentioned, pay the ridiculous parking fee, then repeat on the return trip. Or, I can just fly from the Albany airport (cheap parking, never need to be there more than an hour ahead of the flight) to JFK, then get the flight to London.

      There are lots of hub-and-spoke routes, and the ends of the

  • Where is the plane? (Score:3)

    by John Smith 2294 ( 5807072 ) on Monday October 10, 2022 @06:57AM (#62952743)
    Where is the plane? By 2030? Yeah, sure.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by w3woody ( 44457 )

      It takes something like 10 years to certify a new aircraft design as flight-worthy--meaning if United is going to be carrying any passengers on an electric airplane, there should be a final prototype flying now which is going through the FAA's certification process.

      Even an amended type certification--taking an existing design and modifying the engine--takes something like 5 years, meaning we should at least see a viable prototype now for something with the necessary energy density.

      And I don't think there is

  • Part of the efficiency of flying is that the plane gets lighter to fly higher and higher speed. They do this by burning fuel. In some heavy aircraft with lots of cargo or passengers about 30% of the fuel onboard is to take off, climb and achieve the initial altitude. With battery-powered aircraft weight will remain constant, limiting altitude, range, and speed. Even a small 200mi puddle jump will be extremely costly and inefficient, forcing people to drive or not travel at all, killing small commercial airp

  • For long haul flights and larger passenger numbers the airlines will still need to burn hydrocarbons. Battery powered aircraft are limited in range, speed, and size which makes them unsuited for anything but these tiny hops in flights. Given the laws that discourage short haul flights the utility of these battery powered aircraft is much smaller.

    Claims of improvements on batteries to make battery powered planes more practical are just wishful thinking. We know that we are hitting real physical limits on

  • Attention passengers. We have lost power to the starboard engines. Does anyone have a spare 200 amp fuse packed in their carry-on?
  • Isn't this as useful as a boat that can float only in 6 feet of water?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      Hardly. There are many flights between major and regional airports that are under 200 miles.

    • Approximately. Though there's LOTS of boats that don't ever see more than 6'. So there's a niche.

  • I *hope* to win Powerball tomorrow night. Hope is not a strategy. This is just virtue signalling. It's pure BS.
  • Hey there .I am interested in this article. Here To engage you I found how travel visas look: https://doctempl.com/product-c... [doctempl.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close