United Airlines to Acquire 100 Electric Passenger Planes

July 14, 2021

Fasten your seat belts, secure your tray table, and prepare for disruption.
85 percent of all flights are short haul, 30 minutes to 3 hours.

Houston Chronicle:

United Airlines on Tuesday said it will buy 100 ES-19 aircraft from the Sweden-based electric aircraft startup Heart Aerospace. 

The Chicago carrier will invest an undisclosed amount in the new airplanes, which must first meet United’s safety, business and operating requirements.

Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures will also invest an undisclosed amount as will Arizona’s Mesa Airlines, which will add 100 ES-19 aircraft to its fleet.

“Electric aircraft are happening now—the technology is already here,” CEO of Heart Aerospace Anders Forslund said in the release. “We couldn’t be prouder to be partnering with United, Mesa and BEV on taking our ES-19 aircraft to market. I can’t imagine a stronger coalition of partners to advance our mission to electrify short-haul air travel.”

The ES-19, a 19-seat electric airplane, has the potential to fly customers up to 250 miles. 

The ES-19 will be larger than its all-electric competitors and will operate on the same types of batteries used in electric cars.  By using electric motors instead of jet engines, and batteries instead of jet fuel, Heart’s ES-19 aircraft will have zero operational emissions.

The ES-19 could hit the market as early as 2026.


11 Responses to “United Airlines to Acquire 100 Electric Passenger Planes”

  1. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    A progressive step. Just keep in mind that all such ‘electrification’s’ require low carbon electricity for effectiveness.

    • John Swallow Says:

      Wind Turbines Produce Just 0.46% of Global Energy
      Despite thirty years of government subsidies and hundreds of billions in direct investments in green technologies, wind power still meets just 0.46% of the earth’s energy demands. That’s next to nothing.
      Wind power is useless, and will remain useless due to limited potential efficiency gains (restricted by the Betz limit), and land space requirements—we’d need to cover an area the size of the British Isles with wind turbines just to meet our annual growth in energy consumption. There’s simply not enough land.
      Never mind the problem of intermittentcy, and the hidden systemic risks it entails.
      According to the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends Report, wind, solar, and tidal energy combined met just 0.81% of earth’s aggregated energy demands.
      And yet we’re constantly told that renewable energy makes up a much larger percentage than that. Why the disconnect?
      Because green energy advocates mislead the public by either talking about (i) electrical energy or (ii) implying that “renewable energy” means solar and wind energy. https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/28/72-8-worlds-renewable-energy-made-burning-wood-dung-20x-wind-solar-energy/?fbclid=IwAR38RHJJJ2XEKoth6W_Lk9MdEL7-IpFSy01kKDYyrb_PaS-rKklJgnhXpR4

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        Twisted panties and twisted statistics. Cut GHG or fry.

      • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

        So, what do you think of all the subsidies and social costs that the oil, coal and gas industries have gotten for decades? Do you think we’ll ever invade a country for its solar and wind resources? Do you know how many more hundreds of millions of birds have been killed by oil spills and combustion products than could ever be killed by wind turbines? (Did you hear about the giant wind turbine that fell over and didn’t kill tens of thousands of shorebirds?)

        Do you know that when you put up a wind turbine, it keeps generating power for years? Do you know that when you burn the equivalent power amount of fossil fuel, you have to extract more, and burn that, and then more after that?

        Do you know how much energy it takes to extract, refine and ship out gasoline via tanker trucks before it gets to the pump, and then how much of that energy is turned into waste heat by combustion engines? And you have to keep refining and shipping out more and more and more.

        As for that 5-year-old IEA report, are we supposed to be surprised that fossil fuel companies and their well-fed denialists and lobbyists have deliberately stymied home solar and storage (via utility “policy”), wind turbines (via fake grass roots movements) and grid expansion?

  2. Note that just about everything in this post is in the future tense. Last sentence:

    The ES-19 could hit the market as early as 2026.

    Like the saying that fusion is 20 years away and always will be, electric passenger planes are a few years away and …

  3. dumboldguy Says:

    250 mile range? Half that if there is no charging station at the destination.

    Cruising speed or 185 MPH (and it takes a while to get to that and slow down for landing)

    A very tiny step that is not going to cut GHG emissions by much.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      some of the new entrants are looking at using smaller airports to get around crowding, and focusing on the short haul market- which would allow for quite a time savings, even at (relatively) lower speeds

    • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

      No worries. Not a distraction from overall problem and useful if it works. Nothing lost if it doesn’t.

Leave a Reply to rhymeswithgoalie Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: