As I read it there is still no expected date to return this a/c to service and the FAA has refused (so far) to allow deliveries to commence again in January.

Your summary of the article is not accurate. Yes, the FAA says it will handle approval of all "new" 737-MAX. But while Boeing has expressed a desire to resume deliveries in December the article pretty clearly indicates that the FAA is NOT agreeing to that timetable and, reading between the lines, is very unlikely to agree.

Another take home message from the article is that Boeing is still pressuring FAA to re-certify the MAX quickly.

No surprise there. We're quickly approaching a one-year forced grounding. Pretty wild.

I'm sure the Boeing team wishes they would have spent that year working on proper certification and operational capabilities before deliveries started at this point.

I will be fascinated to see how the reintroduction will be handled. I am assuming (you can disagree, but I am assuming) that the plane will be safe once it is fully re-certified. But the universe of people who are concerned about this plane are not confined to FT. So how do they handle? I assume it will be given a new name. I assume it will be given some favorable promotional coverage. I assume airlines will not discount flights flown by this equipment. But will the allow free changes when a list minute substitution puts this equipment on the line instead of something else? Will there be class action litigation seeking refunds?

My understanding at least at United is that they will offer customers the ability to change flights should they unexpectedly find themselves on a MAX.

I'm going to assume that AA will do same as UA. However, I disagree to some huge issue for the airlines. Most people don't know the difference between a 788 and a 319, are too absorb in social media, and have the recall of a gnat. Yes there will be some flyers that will demand a free change in flight or refund but I don't see it as overwhelming.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that. UA has both publically stated that they will allow customers to switch away from the MAX, and reports are that they actually did so for free before it was grounded. AA on the other hand not only has not stated that they would accommodate changes, but explicitly refused to do so before the USA grounding after many other countries had already grounded the aircraft...and their own flight attendants were allowed to switch schedules away from the MAX. Something to think about when booking.

I'm not saying it's wrong to fly on a MAX or to book AA, and I think the fixed plane will eventually be proven safe in the long run and I will fly it, but I am personally going to avoid the plane for some time after it restarts flying and I'm hesitant to book any ticket that could potentially be swapped onto one without (no-charge) recourse.

Let’s look at some prior instances of terrible aircraft design that caused hull losses and many souls lost for precedence:

De Havilland Comet: stress cracks originating at corners of square windows led to explosive decompression at altitude. Aircraft was redesigned as necessary, Comet II through 4C flew successfully for a number of airlines. I flew on Comet 4Cs a number of times. And IMO this will hurt Boeing more than we know - from “797” development (some are even talking a new engine option 767!), whereas Airbus is already selling A321-XLR as their answer to mid-hauls.

Lockheed L-188 Electra: “whirl mode” phenomenon caused wing separation at altitude. Aircraft was redesigned as necessary. AA renamed its Electras “Electra II”. I flew on a ton of those, so to speak.

Douglas DC-10: ignoring standards of redundant control cables routing and faulty design of baggage door closure resulted in explosive decompression. Baggage door closure was redesigned, AA didn’t rename its aircraft - regardless of model, passengers knew them as “DC-10”, even after AA had a fatal accident after using non-approved maintenance procedures whilst removing engines. I flew on -10, -15 and -30 models a number of times.

737 MAX: “737 Advanced”? “Super 737”? We’ll see, once the FAA, CAA and a number of other nation’s and the EU aviation certification agencies complete recertification. That certainly won’t be next month. Boeing will not get off easily for their IMO greed-driven oversights.

FAA issues new rules for operations 737-MAX jets.

FAA issues new rules for the operation of 737 MAX jets ? Explore the sky above

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...135744.article

"American Airlines pulled the 737 Max from its schedules until April 7 (2020), making it more than a full year since the grounding before it expects to fly the planes again. — link to CNBC article"

This is becoming a sad joke, if you can even call it that. I hope for Boeing and all the passengers that rely on their engineering prowess to fly safely that they have a skunk works project going on to replace the 737 MAX sooner than later and convert much of the backlog to a completely new designed aircraft for this segment. Of course it will take years, but so is the backlog.

You have to wonder what is really going on. I constantly read reports that the FAA is getting close to re-certifying the a/c and then suddenly it's back in limbo. Seems as though there's more going on than meets the eye. I have to wonder will this plane every fly again?

Perhaps. But I won't be on it.

I'll be willing to fly it 2 years after it returns to service, myself. But, until then, I will go out of way to avoid the MAX. My sense is that airlines have also figured that a lot of their customers --even infrequent flyers, who usually have no clue at all about what type of plane the're on-- are intent upon staying clear. These sentiments, whether or not rationally justified, will have a significant impact on the marketability of MAX (to both airlines, and passengers).