A Skeptical Engineer

A blimp is a blimp. These aren't.

The Goodyear Company is upgrading its fleet of airships, going from blimps to zeppelins. This technological step-up will give the flying billboards more speed and passenger-carrying capability than the company had with blimps. But the tire company is also going to continue referring to the airships as Goodyear blimps, even though they aren't. The new aircraft have a rigid structure inside the outer envelope. This lets the three engines be mounted high up on either side and at the aft end.

When I asked Goodyear why they were going ahead with this incorrect use of the word blimp, a well-defined term, a spokesperson replied: “Technically, you are correct.  Our new airship has a semi-rigid structure, which qualifies it as a zeppelin. We are referring to it as the Goodyear Blimp because we have nearly 90 years of equity built into the name and the icon.”

I then asked why they didn’t just call it the Goodyear Tire. Sure, it’s not a tire, but the company has nearly 90 years of equity built into the name and product. So why not?
This kind of doublespeak irritates me. Why use an incorrect word when a perfectly applicable word is available? And I’m not alone in this instance. Airpigz, a website that is “hog wild about anything that flies,’ took a poll on the issue. About 47% of the respondents said: “Goodyear should not call their new airships blimps. Details matter and technically they aren’t blimps.” Almost 37% said: Go ahead. It’s a beloved term even if not completely accurate.” And 15% didn’t care.

I know I won’t be calling them blimps.

For more info on the new Goodyear Zeppelins


Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.