Badvert of the Month: United Airlines
Sky huggers or planet-wreckers?
On December 1st 2021, United Airlines made a triumphal announcement on social media that it had launched the first aircraft powered with 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This news followed United’s promotion of its ‘Eco-Skies’ program, marketed as a partnership scheme whereby its corporate clients can sign-up to help fund the increase in SAF, while lowering their carbon emissions.
“This innovative program offers our corporate customers the opportunity to reduce their environmental impact and help make sustainable aviation the norm. This group of leaders recognizes the need for bold action to accelerate solutions that decarbonize aviation.”
But, on closer inspection, the claim made by United’s marketing team appears highly misleading. Rather than the aircraft being powered by 100% SAF, this was only the case for one single engine. The other was filled with a 50/50 mix of SAF and regular jet fuel as per the quantity allowed under US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines.
This key detail was noticed and picked apart by commentators on Twitter who were quick to call the airlines’ announcement a greenwashing stunt.
The airline’s move, however, was largely praised in the mainstream green and industry press. But, while it was lauded for its apparent commitment to become the most sustainable airline, the lack of transparency that surrounds its flagship ‘Eco-Skies’ program poses serious doubts to its claimed green credentials.
Beneath United’s ‘green front’ - the shady business of biofuels
On the program’s official webpage, no information is to be found on what the company’s sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is sourced from. Twitter users promptly enquired and United’s official account responded that only second-generation biofuels (ie. derived from “waste” products) were used. But can the airline’s own claim in a tweet with no backing by factual sources nor third-party organisation be trusted?
When asked about what companies produced the biofuels, United replies using a majority (80%) of HEFA - hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids - from World Energy and 20% of SAK - or synthesised aromatic kerosene - produced by the company Virent.
There are many problems about the use of biofuels in aviation - not least the fact that the so-called “first generation biofuels” made from sugar cane and vegetable oils are directly competing with other crop uses for food production, and have been responsible for driving up prices of essential foodstuff in countries across Latin America. While United Airlines claims that its SAF originates from second generation biofuels only, nothing from both the quoted SAF producer companies’ websites indicate that this is the case. In fact, evidence shows that despite airlines’ repeated claims to use biofuels from strictly “waste” sources, the use of “first generation” crops into the mix is never ruled out. Besides, the limited availability of biomass “waste” across the globe considerably restricts the potential for scaling up SAF - with many other competing interests for that waste, it indicates that airlines’ pledges for mainstream use as a fuel are a practical impossibility. Another key point to note is that the GHG emissions reduction potential from alternative fuels is relatively insignificant. Despite grand promises from the aviation industry to reduce emissions by 80%, research shows that it would only reach an estimated 5% of emissions reduction potential by 2030 and no more than 40% by 2050 even if the other problems and limitations were overcome.
Showing its true colours - United blocking climate action
If the above reasons were not enough to doubt United Airlines’ true commitment to sustainability, there’s more fuel to be added to the fire. In 2011, the company was found to be involved in lobbying efforts, with recourse to paid-for lobbyists and lawyers, against an environmental law that would make emissions from aviation part of the EU cap and trade carbon credits programme.
“At United, our mission is connecting people and uniting the world. Every day, we celebrate the people and communities across our planet — which is why we understand the need for bold action now to combat climate change. United is committed to reducing our emissions, so that we can continue to appreciate the wonders of this world, today and into the future.”
Major US environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Earthjustice, Environment America, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club wrote to United Airlines’ CEOs to denounce the company’s hypocrisy - blocking climate action on one side while touting its new carbon offsetting program on the other. United Airlines’ lobbying efforts eventually didn’t succeed and the European law took effect on Jan 1st 2012 making CO2 emissions from aviation part of the EU emissions trading system (ETS).
Company background: United Airlines
United Airlines is a major U.S. airline headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, that was created by William Boeing. It operates both international and national routes, spanning across six continents. In 2010, United merged in a long and painful process with Continental Airlines after reaching agreements making it the world’s largest airline.
United Airlines is often in the news and frequently not for flattering reasons. At the height of the pandemic when the need for infection control was acute, a doctor’s tweet about being unexpectedly boarded onto a packed flight went viral, generating very bad publicity. On another occasion a passenger was violently removed from a United Airlines plane simply because the airline had overbooked the flight. The scene was filmed by other passengers causing an international outcry. The airline has also been embroiled in corruption scandals and troubled mergers.
But perhaps worse than all of these has been how the airline demonstrated its priorities during the coronavirus pandemic. In the US, the government agreed to a bailout deal for the aviation industry totalling $25bn as part of the $2.2tn Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. United Airlines was the biggest winner, getting billions in bailout, some it is meant to pay back, but the majority of the money was given as a grant, dependent on United Airlines keeping its 74,400 staff employed and helping them through the pandemic. But, just two months after the bailout was finalised, United Airlines sent job loss warnings to nearly half of its US staff, approximately 36,000 employees. The majority were set to be flight attendants and customer service staff, with some pilots too.
Yet, in the few years before the pandemic United Airlines had spent $8.57bn on stock buybacks - money that could have cushioned workers during the pandemic - then during the pandemic it committed to rewarding top executives to the tune of $7.5m and said it expected pre-pandemic profits to return as soon as 2023. United Airlines also announced the order of 15 supersonic jets. This was the airline’s strategy in the midst of a climate crisis, and after threatening workers with job losses. It is thought that when the planes enter use in 2029, they will offer only a 30% reduction in journey time but burn 5 to 7 times more fuel. United Airlines claim the planes will run on ‘sustainable fuels’, despite biofuels only accounting for 0.01% of fuel currently used by aviation.