B737MAX [Grounded as of 13 March 2019]

    Hide Wikipost
Old Jun 19, 19, 1:24 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: DenverBrian
Wiki Link
United does not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it does operate the 737 MAX 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.

All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) are currently grounded.
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Mar 27, 19, 8:31 am
  #856  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Carolina
Programs: UA LT Gold, American Kettle, Hertz #1 Presidents Circle, Marriott LT Platinum
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Dublin_rfk View Post
To the media there is no difference.
Yep, thats pretty true. Saw this on the National ABC News last night, probably 45-60 seconds of airtime. Only at the very end did they briefly mention that no passengers, only pilots on-board. I knew that it had to be a ferry flight, simply because I'm an FT follower. They never mentioned the words "Ferry Flight" just the quick blurb at the end about no passengers.
MSPeconomist likes this.
drowelf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:28 am
  #857  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: On the Road Again
Programs: UA 1K MM, HH Diamond, Marriott 'clink clink' Titanium
Posts: 695
Originally Posted by drowelf View Post
Yep, thats pretty true. Saw this on the National ABC News last night, probably 45-60 seconds of airtime. Only at the very end did they briefly mention that no passengers, only pilots on-board. I knew that it had to be a ferry flight, simply because I'm an FT follower. They never mentioned the words "Ferry Flight" just the quick blurb at the end about no passengers.
A local station (6 I believe) played audio of the flight. 'We've lost an engine" and at no time mentioned ferry flight or no passengers but did note that the Max8's have been grounded.
Dublin_rfk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:47 am
  #858  
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR/SEA
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 13,198
Sadly the local stations are the worst, even in Top 10 markets in the US

Originally Posted by ABC affiliate station report
Boeing made engines
Boeing does not make the LEAP engine any more than it makes the fuselage (Spirit AeroSystems makes the fuselage for 737).

Drives me nuts. OK, even more nuts ....
EmailKid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 10:07 am
  #859  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 20,733
Originally Posted by EmailKid View Post
Sadly the local stations are the worst, even in Top 10 markets in the US



Boeing does not make the LEAP engine any more than it makes the fuselage (Spirit AeroSystems makes the fuselage for 737).

Drives me nuts. OK, even more nuts ....
Stand by for an aneurysm - FlyerTalk itself is featuring the "story" in its daily email digest.
notquiteaff and Say Vandelay like this.
DenverBrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 10:12 am
  #860  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,856
MAX News Day

Boeing briefings today: boeing-737-max-meeting-pilots-regulators

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/polit...ors/index.html

Senate hearings today at 3 pm: congress/hearing-737-max-crashes-will-focus-faa-oversight

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...-faa-oversight

Last edited by BF263533; Mar 27, 19 at 10:20 am
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 4:04 pm
  #861  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 50.1% in PDX and 49.9% in PVG ( 182 days in Shanghai in 2017 )
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K
Posts: 676
An interesting read: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334482

My simply distillation
  1. Competitive market pressures requires BA to the only solution possible a 737 modification with new engines / wings etc. to compete​​​​​​. Fundamentally new engines on a airframe design from 40 years ago has some issue!
  2. During development identified a fundamental issue with engine airframe integration that required a software patch
  3. Business constraints with pilot training, fungibility, cost, biggest customer required 2) to subterfuge
  4. Obviously internally they identified additional things like dual sensors, warning lights and I'm sure someone in BA suggested more explicit notification / training but because of 1) and 3) decided to do the "minimum" they needed versus what they could.

Now the CEO and senior leaders should take a look at what JnJ did with their Tylenol and or Intel finally had to do with their FDIV. It is hard to admit you failed, but the longer they don't the worse it will be and all confidence will be lost. Of course AirBus can't look itself cleanly in the mirror as their closet isn't clean of skeletons either.
chipmaster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 4:13 pm
  #862  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, RC/MR/SPG Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 6,099
Originally Posted by chipmaster View Post
An interesting read: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334482

My simply distillation
  1. Competitive market pressures requires BA to the only solution possible a 737 modification with new engines / wings etc. to compete​​​​​​. Fundamentally new engines on a airframe design from 40 years ago has some issue!
  2. During development identified a fundamental issue with engine airframe integration that required a software patch
  3. Business constraints with pilot training, fungibility, cost, biggest customer required 2) to subterfuge
  4. Obviously internally they identified additional things like dual sensors, warning lights and I'm sure someone in BA suggested more explicit notification / training but because of 1) and 3) decided to do the "minimum" they needed versus what they could.

Now the CEO and senior leaders should take a look at what JnJ did with their Tylenol and or Intel finally had to do with their FDIV. It is hard to admit you failed, but the longer they don't the worse it will be and all confidence will be lost. Of course AirBus can't look itself cleanly in the mirror as their closet isn't clean of skeletons either.
Agreed. This is a market with very little competition as well which contributes to the problem. Innovation has stagnated heavily, especially in the narrow body aircraft market.
cmd320 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 6:51 pm
  #863  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,856
The quoted article is titled: "Software Won’t Fix Boeing’s ‘Faulty’ Airframe"

The quoted article states:

"Travis is unequivocal in his assessment of the Boeing 737 MAX. “It’s a faulty airframe. You’ve got to fix the airframe [and] you can’t fix the airframe without moving the engines” back and away from their current position."

Originally Posted by chipmaster View Post
An interesting read: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1334482

My simply distillation
  1. Competitive market pressures requires BA to the only solution possible a 737 modification with new engines / wings etc. to compete​​​​​​. Fundamentally new engines on a airframe design from 40 years ago has some issue!
  2. During development identified a fundamental issue with engine airframe integration that required a software patch
  3. Business constraints with pilot training, fungibility, cost, biggest customer required 2) to subterfuge
  4. Obviously internally they identified additional things like dual sensors, warning lights and I'm sure someone in BA suggested more explicit notification / training but because of 1) and 3) decided to do the "minimum" they needed versus what they could.
Now the CEO and senior leaders should take a look at what JnJ did with their Tylenol and or Intel finally had to do with their FDIV. It is hard to admit you failed, but the longer they don't the worse it will be and all confidence will be lost. Of course AirBus can't look itself cleanly in the mirror as their closet isn't clean of skeletons either.
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:02 pm
  #864  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 10,921
Originally Posted by chipmaster View Post
  1. During development identified a fundamental issue with engine airframe integration that required a software patch
  2. Business constraints with pilot training, fungibility, cost, biggest customer required 2) to subterfuge
  3. Obviously internally they identified additional things like dual sensors, warning lights and I'm sure someone in BA suggested more explicit notification / training but because of 1) and 3) decided to do the "minimum" they needed versus what they could.
Again, as with many others, you've got cause and effect backward. The aircraft is certifiable without MCAS; MCAS is not required due to a "fundamental issue with engine airframe integration" period.
ajGoes and ExplorerWannabe like this.
mduell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:08 pm
  #865  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 20,733
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Again, as with many others, you've got cause and effect backward. The aircraft is certifiable without MCAS; MCAS is not required due to a "fundamental issue with engine airframe integration" period.
Then why spend the money and include MCAS at all?
DenverBrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:14 pm
  #866  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Then why spend the money and include MCAS at all?
So the airplane feels like the NG to pilots.
fly18725 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:19 pm
  #867  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 20,733
Originally Posted by fly18725 View Post


So the airplane feels like the NG to pilots.
Meaning they don't have to spend any money on training and no different certification.

Which has led us to two similar crashes in five months.
DenverBrian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 19, 9:29 pm
  #868  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,856
With Boeing's software changes & MCAS being less robust, we will just have to wait & see if 737mAX pilots will be facing abnormally more times where they have to take affirmative action to prevent a stall.
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 19, 2:57 am
  #869  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: YUL
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,621
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Meaning they don't have to spend any money on training and no different certification.

Which has led us to two similar crashes in five months.
Exactly. This was a money grab for Boeing and the airlines (although I imagine most were kept in the dark about the problems), and hundreds of people lost their lives.
dinoscool3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 19, 6:09 am
  #870  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,828
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Meaning they don't have to spend any money on training and no different certification.

Which has led us to two similar crashes in five months.
It is a different certification already. The new training being recommended is still minimal so it is hard to argue that was a motivation for the MCAS system.

You also don’t know that MCAS led to either crash. At this point, it is simply confirmed as a contributor to one.
fly18725 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread