Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 ? 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 – 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 22, 2019 | 11:55 pm
  #31  
30 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver. (Former UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat)
Posts: 9,477
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Even the MAX9 needs very high landing speeds due to the short gear necessitating a flat approach.
That MAX actually improved the landing speed issues over the 737 NG -800 and -900 aircraft.

The 737-800/900 has a roll stability issue with landing flaps 40. The wings "wag" back and forth. For that reason, the airplanes are normally landed with Flaps 30 which adds 8 or 9 knots to the approach and landing speeds. The MAX, -8 and -9, have fixed this problem so flaps 40 are the normal landing flaps setting resulting in landing speeds which are 8 or 9 knots slower than the -800/-900.
nnn and ExplorerWannabe like this.
LarryJ is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 12:18 am
  #32  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Programs: NZ Elite
Posts: 6,518
Originally Posted by nachosdelux
that statement is laughable. tell it to the 300+ who were killed because of poor engineering/design/approval
And the Airbus passengers who were killed in a flyby at an Airshow???? AF296... remember?????
trooper is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 12:24 am
  #33  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,642
I think there's at least a not-entirely-irrational "So, did they miss anything else?" fear here. I'd be inclined to recommend some mix of switching to (similarly-sized) 757s where possible and moving any shorter-term 737 MAX orders down to "standard" 737 planes.

This isn't a full-blown cancellation, but I think a demand of "You will go back, review everything, and assure us that there's not another disaster lurking in the wings and we'll go from there" isn't unreasonable, even if it fouls up fleet replacement timetables. However, something else coming along and grounding the plane again in a year or two (even if it is a preemptive catch)? That's gonna be a problem for everyone.

Edit: Also, I don't think Boeing will have much (if any) luck penalizing anyone who dumps a MAX order because of this, given the obvious mess they made of the process. If anything, they're probably "on the hook" for damages from folks who already have aircraft in hand who just saw big chunks of their fleet grounded.
GrayAnderson is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 8:37 am
  #34  
10 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM, Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe
I already select my flights to avoid Airbus whenever possible. Doesn't mean I can always do it but whenever possible. As it stands, most trips I take do at least one leg on a CRJ or EJR with Boeings on the remaining leg. Haven't had to go on Airbus in years.
Why not just fly Southwest and not jump through all of those hoops?
lixiaojuventus likes this.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 8:41 am
  #35  
10 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM, Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by LarryJ
That MAX actually improved the landing speed issues over the 737 NG -800 and -900 aircraft.

The 737-800/900 has a roll stability issue with landing flaps 40. The wings "wag" back and forth. For that reason, the airplanes are normally landed with Flaps 30 which adds 8 or 9 knots to the approach and landing speeds. The MAX, -8 and -9, have fixed this problem so flaps 40 are the normal landing flaps setting resulting in landing speeds which are 8 or 9 knots slower than the -800/-900.
Thanks for that clarification. It still seems the landing speeds will be quite high for the MAX10 considering it's going to be a heavier plane but with only four tires for braking. Tell me if I'm wrongly projecting, though.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 12:33 pm
  #36  
10 Countries Visited20 Countries Visited30 Countries Visited5 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Programs: DL, UA
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Kacee
Yeah we don't even need to talk about safety to reach this conclusion from the passenger's perspective. The 321 is a better aircraft for passenger comfort due to the wider cabin.
United doesn’t buy planes to provide more passenger comfort. That’s the last thing they worry about.
ATLintheair is offline  
Old Mar 23, 2019 | 6:42 pm
  #37  
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: 2026 Free Agent
Posts: 657
The band aids and sticky tape over the 50 year old design killed people. Boeing has crushed Airbus in the widebody market, but the 797 needs to get here soon as a 757/737 replacement that can compete with the A320/321.
DenverBrian likes this.
PotomacApproach is offline  
Old Mar 24, 2019 | 3:28 am
  #38  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Of the US carriers Delta appears to have chosen the more modern planes with the A220 & the A321neo, completely avoiding the 737 mAX.
YUL and DenverBrian like this.
BF263533 is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2019 | 12:06 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 25,582
Originally Posted by worldclubber
United should at least consider to diversify their narrow-body fleet, to make sure that their network doesn't collapse if the feces hit the proverbial fan concerning the MAX.
The MAX currently makes up a tiny percentage of UA's narrow-body fleet; even once they take delivery of all 100, and assuming an equal number of retirements, it still represents 15-20% of their fleet.
Dublin_rfk likes this.
jsloan is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2019 | 1:07 pm
  #40  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: many
Posts: 7,338
Originally Posted by jsloan
The MAX currently makes up a tiny percentage of UA's narrow-body fleet; even once they take delivery of all 100, and assuming an equal number of retirements, it still represents 15-20% of their fleet.
I know. But the proportion would likely grow in the future and it is a strategic decision now whether UA wants that or not.
worldclubber is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2019 | 1:09 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 25,582
Originally Posted by worldclubber
I know. But the proportion would likely grow in the future and it is a strategic decision now whether UA wants that or not.
If the proportion grows in the future, that's a sure sign that UA considers the matter settled.
jsloan is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2019 | 1:12 pm
  #42  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: many
Posts: 7,338
Originally Posted by jsloan
If the proportion grows in the future, that's a sure sign that UA considers the matter settled.
We will see.
worldclubber is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2019 | 10:11 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,807
The problem is not should UA cancel or not. The actual issue is UA will NEVER cancel the order.

1. Even the MAX grounding covers UA's 7M9, so far there is nothing conclusive suggesting 7M9 might have the same or similar problem as 7M8.

Note - UA did not order 7M8.

2. UA uses 737s again because of the merger with CO. That's why many pilots are type certified for 737s, but not A320. If UA switches its order to Airbus, UA will have to cough off more money for training purposes. In this climate, it does not like Airbus is going to give UA a great deal.

Note - the uncertainty of UA's A350 order also impacts its bargaining power with Airbus.

3. Last but not the least, UA's commitment with Boeing actually helps both UA and Boeing, which UA can, at the minimum, bargain for more discounts with any new or existing orders, while Boeing can live on another day.
garykung is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2019 | 12:57 pm
  #44  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York / Hawaii
Programs: UA Global Services, HH Diamond
Posts: 5,205
No

UA has so few Max9s now it isn't impacting their operations or consumer perceptions.

And just like the 787 started flying again after the battery issue was resolved, so too will the MAX.

UA isn't going to invest into another fleet/crew type for a short term issue.
jsloan, wxguy and tuolumne like this.
Weatherboy is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2019 | 1:17 pm
  #45  
Moderator: United Airlines
2M
Community Builder
Active Streak: 30 Days
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA LT Plat 2MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 72,965
As this thread had started to become a reprise of the B737MAX [Grounded as of 13 March 2019] thread, have moved much of this thread over into the MAX thread. Let's focus the discussion of the MAX issue in the MAX thread and not have two threads on the same topic.

This thread was started to ask if UA should switch to A321neo. That can be done without rehashing the MAX discussion. There is plenty of ground for discussion on the A321neo and United

If the thread agains drifts off in focusing on 737 MAX issues, those postings will be moved to the MAX thread.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
cesco.g likes this.
WineCountryUA is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.