Mar 11, 2019, 12:37 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Thread Topic
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Now that UA MAX flights have resumed, see UA statement at All about the Boeing 737 MAX: Safety, status and more
================================================== ========
The first B737 MAX, an enhanced version of the B737 family, started service in May 2016, a MAX 8. MAX 9 entered service March 2018. (UA service start date??)
The MAX series was ground in March 2019 after two incidents involve the MCAS; Lion Air Flight 610 - Wikipedia and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 - Wikipedia
United did not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it had operated the 737 MAX 9.
All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) were grounded. Boeing in conjunction with FAA, EASA, Transport Canada and other national air safety organizations entered into a cause investigation, into the MCAS operation, into if sufficient training had been provided and into if the original certification process had been sufficient rigid.
Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (PDF).
The FAA (18 Nov 2020), EASA (24 Nov 2020) and Transport Canada (17 Dec 2020) have re-certified the MAX 8 & MAX 9 for commercial flight
Boeing 737 MAX certification - Wikipedia
AA resumed use of MAX8 on 29 Dec 2020
UA plans to resumes service of the MAX9 in Feb 2020 (from IAH and DEN)
Airlines have resumed taking deliveries of the MAX 8 & 9
================
How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:
View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.
The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.
For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.
B737MAX Recertification - Archive
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Now that UA MAX flights have resumed, see UA statement at All about the Boeing 737 MAX: Safety, status and more
If you do not wish to fly on a MAX aircraft, we will rebook you at no charge or refund your ticket. This includes domestic ticket changes, Basic Economy tickets and international tickets if you move from one of our MAX flights to one of our non-MAX United or United Express flights. If your original itinerary involved another carrier, we will attempt to rebook you on your original airline on a non-MAX flight as well.
When we begin to fly the MAX once again, you should feel completely confident that we have taken all the necessary steps to confirm that our 737 MAX aircraft are as safe as any of our aircraft flying today. Safety has been and always will be our top priority, and it’s something we will never compromise for any reason.
When we begin to fly the MAX once again, you should feel completely confident that we have taken all the necessary steps to confirm that our 737 MAX aircraft are as safe as any of our aircraft flying today. Safety has been and always will be our top priority, and it’s something we will never compromise for any reason.
We will waive any applicable change fees or difference in fare if your rebooked flight:
If you don’t meet these conditions but still want to rebook, you may use the value of your ticket to rebook on another flight without a change fee, but a fare difference may apply based on the fare rules of the ticket.
- Has the same origin and destination as your original flight
- Is in your originally ticketed cabin (any booking code)
- Is rescheduled for the same day or one day earlier or later than your original travel date
- Is a United or United Express flight only
If you don’t meet these conditions but still want to rebook, you may use the value of your ticket to rebook on another flight without a change fee, but a fare difference may apply based on the fare rules of the ticket.
READ BEFORE POSTING
Once again many posters in this thread have forgotten the FT rules and resorted to "Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming " and other non-collegial, non-civil discourse. This is not allowed.
Posters appear to be talking at others, talking about others, not discussing the core issues. Repeating the same statements, saying the same thing LOUDER is not civil discourse. These problems are not with one poster, they are not just one point of view, ...
As useful as some discussion here has been, continuing rules violations will lead to suspensions and thread closure. Please think about that before posting.
The purpose of FT is to be an informative forum that, in this case, enables the UA flyer to enhance their travel experience. There are other forums for different types of discussions. This thread was had wide latitude but that latitude is being abused.
Bottom line, if you can not stay within the FT rules and the forum's topic areas, please do not post.
And before posting, ask if you are bringing new contributing information to the discussion -- not just repeating previous points, then please do not post.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Once again many posters in this thread have forgotten the FT rules and resorted to "Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming " and other non-collegial, non-civil discourse. This is not allowed.
Posters appear to be talking at others, talking about others, not discussing the core issues. Repeating the same statements, saying the same thing LOUDER is not civil discourse. These problems are not with one poster, they are not just one point of view, ...
As useful as some discussion here has been, continuing rules violations will lead to suspensions and thread closure. Please think about that before posting.
The purpose of FT is to be an informative forum that, in this case, enables the UA flyer to enhance their travel experience. There are other forums for different types of discussions. This thread was had wide latitude but that latitude is being abused.
Bottom line, if you can not stay within the FT rules and the forum's topic areas, please do not post.
And before posting, ask if you are bringing new contributing information to the discussion -- not just repeating previous points, then please do not post.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
This thread has engendered some strongly felt opinions and a great tendency to wander into many peripherally related topics. By all normal FT moderation standards, this thread would have been permanently closed long ago ( and numerous members receiving disciplinary actions).
However, given the importance of the subject, the UA Moderators have tried to host this discussion but odd here as UA is not the top 1 or 2 or 3 for MAX among North America carriers. However, some have allowed their passion and non-UA related opinions to repeatedly disrupt this discussion.
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Discussion of Boeing's culture or the impact on Boeing's future is not in scope. Nor is comments on restructuring the regulatory process. Neither is the impacts on COVID on the general air industry -- those are not UA specific and are better discussed elsewhere. And for discussion of UA's future, there is a separate thread.
Additionally repeated postings of essentially the same content should not happen nor unnecessarily inflammatory posts. And of course, the rest of FT posting rules apply including discuss the issue and not the posters.
The Moderator team feels there is a reason / need for this thread but it has been exhausting to have to repeated re-focus the discussion -- don't be the reason this thread is permanently closed ( and get yourself in disciplinary problems).
Stick to the relevant topic which is (repeating myself)
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
However, given the importance of the subject, the UA Moderators have tried to host this discussion but odd here as UA is not the top 1 or 2 or 3 for MAX among North America carriers. However, some have allowed their passion and non-UA related opinions to repeatedly disrupt this discussion.
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
Discussion of Boeing's culture or the impact on Boeing's future is not in scope. Nor is comments on restructuring the regulatory process. Neither is the impacts on COVID on the general air industry -- those are not UA specific and are better discussed elsewhere. And for discussion of UA's future, there is a separate thread.
Additionally repeated postings of essentially the same content should not happen nor unnecessarily inflammatory posts. And of course, the rest of FT posting rules apply including discuss the issue and not the posters.
The Moderator team feels there is a reason / need for this thread but it has been exhausting to have to repeated re-focus the discussion -- don't be the reason this thread is permanently closed ( and get yourself in disciplinary problems).
Stick to the relevant topic which is (repeating myself)
The reason for continuing this thread is to inform the UA traveler on the status of the MAX recertification and if / when UA might deploy the MAX aircraft. And UA flyer's thoughts about UA deploying the MAX if that was to happen.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
The first B737 MAX, an enhanced version of the B737 family, started service in May 2016, a MAX 8. MAX 9 entered service March 2018. (UA service start date??)
The MAX series was ground in March 2019 after two incidents involve the MCAS; Lion Air Flight 610 - Wikipedia and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 - Wikipedia
United did not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it had operated the 737 MAX 9.
All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) were grounded. Boeing in conjunction with FAA, EASA, Transport Canada and other national air safety organizations entered into a cause investigation, into the MCAS operation, into if sufficient training had been provided and into if the original certification process had been sufficient rigid.
Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (PDF).
The FAA (18 Nov 2020), EASA (24 Nov 2020) and Transport Canada (17 Dec 2020) have re-certified the MAX 8 & MAX 9 for commercial flight
Boeing 737 MAX certification - Wikipedia
AA resumed use of MAX8 on 29 Dec 2020
UA plans to resumes service of the MAX9 in Feb 2020 (from IAH and DEN)
Airlines have resumed taking deliveries of the MAX 8 & 9
================
How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:
View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.
The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.
For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.
B737MAX Recertification - Archive
B737MAX-Cleared by FAA to resume passenger flights;UA MAX flights resumed 11 Feb 2020
Jul 22, 2020, 1:30 am
#61
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 207
This whole thing can really be traced back to UA ordering the A320 in 1992. I mean, really think on a micro level. Boeing absolutely believed they would order the 737-400, UA even had purchase option rights for 737-422s if you go digging in old UA SEC filings.
Losing that order was the catalyst for the 737NG, a great plane that sold like mad, but also handicapped in a lot of ways by WN, who insisted on the 737 cockpit, while early concepts envisioned the 757 nose, and also by the FAA. Boeing successfully argued that the NG was a derivative aircraft to save on certification costs by using the existing type certicate, even though they also claimed it was built with entirely different technology and was practically a new airplane and Airbus argued as such. That distinction is important as 737 classics have numerous AD’s relating to fuselage skin coming undone, while supposedly the NG uses different methods on the fuselage skin to prevent that from happening.
The success of the 737NG hastens the demise of the 757, an airplane that solves many of the issues with the 737, such as a quieter, more ergonomically designed cockpit, taller landing gear enabling larger engines, and performance to be used on long, thin routes to be a better competitor to the A321, a segment that’s exploded in the last 15 years.
Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing already designed an airplane that could be adapted and updated for today to compete with Airbus, and they failed to see it. The knee jerk reaction to losing that United 737 order so many years ago ultimately led us today. Thanks for listening to my TED (Rar!) talk.
Losing that order was the catalyst for the 737NG, a great plane that sold like mad, but also handicapped in a lot of ways by WN, who insisted on the 737 cockpit, while early concepts envisioned the 757 nose, and also by the FAA. Boeing successfully argued that the NG was a derivative aircraft to save on certification costs by using the existing type certicate, even though they also claimed it was built with entirely different technology and was practically a new airplane and Airbus argued as such. That distinction is important as 737 classics have numerous AD’s relating to fuselage skin coming undone, while supposedly the NG uses different methods on the fuselage skin to prevent that from happening.
The success of the 737NG hastens the demise of the 757, an airplane that solves many of the issues with the 737, such as a quieter, more ergonomically designed cockpit, taller landing gear enabling larger engines, and performance to be used on long, thin routes to be a better competitor to the A321, a segment that’s exploded in the last 15 years.
Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing already designed an airplane that could be adapted and updated for today to compete with Airbus, and they failed to see it. The knee jerk reaction to losing that United 737 order so many years ago ultimately led us today. Thanks for listening to my TED (Rar!) talk.
Jul 22, 2020, 8:26 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing already designed an airplane that could be adapted and updated for today to compete with Airbus, and they failed to see it. The knee jerk reaction to losing that United 737 order so many years ago ultimately led us today. Thanks for listening to my TED (Rar!) talk.
The exact same situation (AA's big Airbus order) is what created the 737MAX now. Boeing finds itself on the short end of the stick because rather than innovating and bringing a competitive product to market in advance, they instead wait until they're losing orders to their competitor and then have to scramble to hastily put something else together. It worked the first time, it didn't the second. They need some new blood in that company.
Jul 22, 2020, 9:56 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
The success of the 737NG hastens the demise of the 757, an airplane that solves many of the issues with the 737, such as a quieter, more ergonomically designed cockpit, taller landing gear enabling larger engines, and performance to be used on long, thin routes to be a better competitor to the A321, a segment that’s exploded in the last 15 years.
Jul 22, 2020, 10:27 am
#66
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: JZRO
Posts: 9,169
"FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson, a former Delta Air Lines pilot, has said he won't sign off on re-certifying the 737 Max until he flies the plane himself, pushing the timeline for allowing the Max back into commercial airline service into at least mid-October."
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/21/89395...oubled-737-max
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/21/89395...oubled-737-max
Jul 22, 2020, 10:28 am
#67
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,217
Even if they did certify the plane earlier it is not like any airline, including United, needs the plane in the fleet with so many aircraft sitting parked at various airports. Many UA planes parked at IAH and IAD a couple of weeks ago. With capacity galore I do not see UA pushing for certification prior to then.
Jul 22, 2020, 10:46 am
#68
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: JZRO
Posts: 9,169
Jul 22, 2020, 10:56 am
#69
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TPA
Programs: United MP
Posts: 463
And therein lies the problem with Boeing's reactive strategy.
The exact same situation (AA's big Airbus order) is what created the 737MAX now. Boeing finds itself on the short end of the stick because rather than innovating and bringing a competitive product to market in advance, they instead wait until they're losing orders to their competitor and then have to scramble to hastily put something else together. It worked the first time, it didn't the second. They need some new blood in that company.
The exact same situation (AA's big Airbus order) is what created the 737MAX now. Boeing finds itself on the short end of the stick because rather than innovating and bringing a competitive product to market in advance, they instead wait until they're losing orders to their competitor and then have to scramble to hastily put something else together. It worked the first time, it didn't the second. They need some new blood in that company.
I wonder if with all of the enormous cost to Boeing as well as to the airlines if the decision had been made to do a fairly comprehensive rework of the 737, allowing for greater ground clearance, cargo, fuel capacity, MTOW if that would have been less expensive than the MAX boondoggle?
Jul 22, 2020, 11:22 am
#70
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
The 787 beat the A350 to market while Airbus was still trying to drum up sales for the commercial disaster that is the A380. The last clean-sheet 4 engine jet that came out of Boeing was the 747, Airbus has had two in that timeframe and the more successful of the two still wasn't as successful as the twin engine variants. Hindsight being 20-20 they definitely both have made mistakes on things like market demand.
Is Boeing or Airbus for that matter unable to effectively manage two or more projects at one time? And lest we forget the numerous delays with both the 787 and A350 programs, not to mention the quality control issues with the 787s when they finally actually entered service.
Jul 22, 2020, 1:46 pm
#71
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,198
That's what I've been projecting all along - and this not they will certify the MAX, it means they might certify the MAX - they are still pouring through the data from the recent test flight and more changes might still be required. Of course, find me an airline anywhere in the world who wants to take delivery of new aircraft now.
Jul 22, 2020, 1:50 pm
#72
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,118
The 787 beat the A350 to market while Airbus was still trying to drum up sales for the commercial disaster that is the A380. The last clean-sheet 4 engine jet that came out of Boeing was the 747, Airbus has had two in that timeframe and the more successful of the two still wasn't as successful as the twin engine variants. Hindsight being 20-20 they definitely both have made mistakes on things like market demand.
That was my understanding as well. AFAIK, even with a re-engine (A 757neo if you will) the 757 is still too heavy to match an A320 or 737 stretch on fuel efficiency. In fuel burn the most efficient models seem to be the longest stretches of a smaller airframe.
I wonder if with all of the enormous cost to Boeing as well as to the airlines if the decision had been made to do a fairly comprehensive rework of the 737, allowing for greater ground clearance, cargo, fuel capacity, MTOW if that would have been less expensive than the MAX boondoggle?
That was my understanding as well. AFAIK, even with a re-engine (A 757neo if you will) the 757 is still too heavy to match an A320 or 737 stretch on fuel efficiency. In fuel burn the most efficient models seem to be the longest stretches of a smaller airframe.
I wonder if with all of the enormous cost to Boeing as well as to the airlines if the decision had been made to do a fairly comprehensive rework of the 737, allowing for greater ground clearance, cargo, fuel capacity, MTOW if that would have been less expensive than the MAX boondoggle?
Jul 22, 2020, 1:59 pm
#73
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
Aircraft manufacturers don't make a new transport jet then try to sell it to airlines. They are in constant contact with their airline customers discussing what they could build and finding out what the airlines want and will order. Boeing didn't make a clean-sheet redesign to replace the 737NG because they couldn't convince their airline customers to wait for it to be designed and certified and to pay its higher cost. The customers wanted an improved 737 sooner and cheaper.
If Boeing had said, "No", and proceeded to design a clean-sheet 737 replacement, many thousands of those MAX orders would have been A320-series orders instead.
It's not like Airbus has done a clean-sheet mid-sized narrowbody design recently, either. The A320 series was developed in the 1980s.
The efficiency gains of the MAX, over the NG, are significant. A clean-sheet design would be even better, but in the judgement of the customers, not enough better to justify the increased cost and delay.
20/20 hindsight wasn't available back in 2011 when the MAX program was launched.
If Boeing had said, "No", and proceeded to design a clean-sheet 737 replacement, many thousands of those MAX orders would have been A320-series orders instead.
It's not like Airbus has done a clean-sheet mid-sized narrowbody design recently, either. The A320 series was developed in the 1980s.
The efficiency gains of the MAX, over the NG, are significant. A clean-sheet design would be even better, but in the judgement of the customers, not enough better to justify the increased cost and delay.
20/20 hindsight wasn't available back in 2011 when the MAX program was launched.
Jul 22, 2020, 2:03 pm
#74
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
You can play with the ETOPS maps and routes at Great Circle Mapper.
Jul 22, 2020, 2:32 pm
#75
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,118
Having more than two engines will shorten some routes but, with 240+ min ETOPS, there's very little of the world's airspace that you can't fly through.
You can play with the ETOPS maps and routes at Great Circle Mapper.
You can play with the ETOPS maps and routes at Great Circle Mapper.