United Airlines Invests $35 Million In ZeroAvia (Hydrogen-Electric Engines)

This is a $35 million marketing play. For less than the cost of a large media buy, UA gets a ton of friendly free press that paints them as caring for the environment. There is a 0% chance there are regional jets flying with hydrogen engines in 7 years, but this is a smart marketing move by UA.

I highly doubt there is any market for 19 seat aircraft

You nailed it. Not to mention coddling with the current administration, who is big on this pie in the sky junk, and controls the purse strings for future bailouts.

But... isn't United Express's owners really NOT United? So, why would United buy engines for United Express aircraft?

canada has several, for instance... from toronto city to central ontario, wine country, cottage country etc... Vancouver to Victoria, Seattle, Nanaimo etc which have less than 19 but have high frequency with lots of passengers and high demand.... tons of demand in Hawaii, Alaska and us north east as well

&Bob - It’s very common that a major carrier like United will purchase regional aircraft which they then in turn lease to their regional partners. Few regionals have the cash or credit to purchase a large number of aircraft on their own. This way their limited cash is not tied up in aircraft purchases and depreciation. It also make it easier for United to switch aircraft from one regional partner to another.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.

I will copy my comment on an earlier article about a similar investment and paste it here.

"Low passenger carrying, short haul, electrically driven aircraft may be becoming more viable in the next 10-20 years with advancements in higher density batteries. To date, the only major commercial aircraft to take a leap in this direction is the B787 with it's electrically powered surfaces but the propulsion remains a petroleum-based turbofan. Simply, batteries are heavy, have low energy densities and contribute to a high weight-to-thrust ratio.

The hydrogen economy has been tried and tested in various scales over the years. However, I see little progress in the major use of hydrogen as an alternative to petroleum even in the future. The low density of hydrogen requires high cryogenic compression to store any substantial value of energy. While hydrogen has a high specific energy density, it's volumetric energy density remains low without substantial compression. There are inherent problems with flying around holding large tanks of compressed combustible substance with a low-ignition-limit like hydrogen. Even if we overcome the practical problems with storage and calorific value, cultivation of hydrogen consumes excessive energy, either through hydrolysis or through pyrolysis and/or gasification. The latter two also releasing large quantities of GHGs in the process and all requiring a primary energy source. Due to all this, I consider natural gas is a more viable alternative. It is cleaner (than jet kerosene), more efficient as a fuel and easily adaptable to the existing gas turbines. Nat gas can be extracted as it is done today or synthesized through gasification or biochemical pathways.

So while I am all for the advancement of science and genuinely wish Embraer the best, I would place my money on renewable (maybe bio) fuels and more efficient aircraft engine concepts, including the return to turboprops, because they are extremely efficient and latest designs are quiet. Ultimately, the underlying issue at hand is not the energy that we use in the aircraft, but how we produce that energy to begin with. Electricity, hydrogen, jet kerosene, natural gas can all be created through carbon neutral or carbon intensive methods - the cost remains the prohibitive factor for the former.

Clearly a topic I very much am invested in."