Three years ago American Airlines promoted a hypothetical maybe order for electric aircraft using taxpayer bailout funds. Now they’re promoting a hypothetical maybe order for hydrogen-fueled aircraft while positioning themselves as unable to afford higher wages for flight attendants.
American Airlines today announced that it has entered into a conditional purchase agreement with clean aviation innovator ZeroAvia for 100 hydrogen-electric engines intended to power regional jet aircraft with zero inflight emissions save for water vapor.
In addition, American has increased its investment in ZeroAvia. American made its first investment in ZeroAvia in 2022 and has also now participated in the company’s Series C financing round. The engine agreement follows the Memorandum of Understanding the companies announced in 2022.
ZeroAvia is developing hydrogen-electric (fuel cell-powered) engines for commercial aircraft, which offer the potential for close to zero inflight emissions. The company is flight testing a prototype for a 20-seat plane and designing an engine for larger aircraft such as the Bombardier CRJ700, which American operates on certain regional routes.
Of course not everyone loves the idea of alternate fuel-based planes.
Marjorie Taylor Greene joked that electric airplanes would be powered like “slave ships” with passengers forced to spin on exercise bikes by a “mean, nasty airline stewardess” in order “to keep the airplane in the air.” pic.twitter.com/FI8U6RV0YM
— PatriotTakes (@patriottakes) September 17, 2022
At this point American just has a press release and a talking point in order to claim they’re on a path towards ‘net zero by 2050’. We have no idea which technology will win transitioning from fossil fuels, and this isn’t so much as a bet on a particular one as notional participation in the idea without a corresponding major resource commitment in an actual order of aircraft.
At least it’s not Delta’s approach. They own an oil refinery and bought fraudulent carbon credits to claim they were already net zero.
And I’d rather American do this than virtue signal with cost-cutting cardboard amenity kits.
Wow! I must have grossly underestimated the financial strength and solid economic grounding of AA. Only an airline that is flush with money, light on debt, and with a phenomenal positive net cash flow could afford to make this type of investment.
Or maybe, just maybe, somebody at AA feels the need to virtue signal to some perceived audience. And I agree, Gary, that audience is obviously not the FAs.
Hydrogen?
Remember the Hindenburg
If AA didn’t put up a deposit, it’s a joke.
others have noted – I cannot verify – that other gasses are much worse from hydrogen powered engines than current engines. You just change one pollutant for another that is perhaps worse.
The only emission-free airplanes I know of are those old-school ones made of paper or balsa wood.
The only emissions from mixing hydrogen and oxygen is water. Two hydrogen plus one oxygen = water. This is basic chemistry. The main issue with using hydrogen as fuel has been the ability to carry enough of it onboard a vehicle to be practical.
Interesting in light of this from the Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/universal-hydrogen-pioneer-of-hydrogen-powered-flight-goes-bust/
While it is true that burning hydrogen produces only water, you need to look one step upstream in the energy flow. If you do that, you will discover that 99+ percent of the hydrogen produced today is done by reformation of natural gas. That produces hydrogen and carbon, and is no less carbon intensive than just burning the natural gas directly. Too bad there is no natural source of hydrogen in the ground where one can just drill a hole and get it out. What come out of that hole instead is natural gas (or methane if you prefer to call it that)
Too bad there is no free lunch.
Appears the hard-cost of the “Investment” and a ‘conditional purchase agreement’ isn’t disclosed. I’d urge AA owes that information to its shareholders.
@jcil. Precisely, hydrogen is an avenue to store energy, not a source of energy. As you note, today the overwhelming source of H2 is CH4. The hope is to 1) be able to use green/renewable—or nuclear in the interim— sources to use in electrolysis of H2O or 2) find a way to sequester the C in CH4 to 2H2 conversion.
Dave W is exactly right. Hydrogen production from green energy is the key. Production cost is currently many times higher, but continuing drop in renewable energy cost and increases in electrolysis process efficiencies should make liquid hydrogen a viable jet fuel replacement in the not too distant future. AA’s investment is not as far fetched as many think.
Pressurized hydrogen gas,, I think, not liquid hydrogen.
Maybe AA should really take some time out to sort out their priorities on this one because it seems to me like they’ve literally dug themselves into a Big hole due to there Stupid acts