Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
This is an archive thread, the archive thread is https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1960195-b737max-cleared-faa-resume-passenger-flights-when-will-ua-max-flights-resume.html
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
B737MAX Recertification - Archive
Mar 10, 2019, 5:39 pm
#76
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Welcome to FT @Cappa The 767 is a different aircraft to the 737.
The 737MAX is a revamped version of the 737. I personally do not have concerns with either the 767 or 737. My concern is with the 737MAX-8
The 737MAX is a revamped version of the 737. I personally do not have concerns with either the 767 or 737. My concern is with the 737MAX-8
Mar 10, 2019, 5:43 pm
#77
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,158
Ground them why? You don’t know what you’re grounding them for. With the 787 you knew what the issue was. With lion air the issue was poor maintenance practices and poor aviating. You don’t yet know what caused this accident. So I’ll ask again. Why are you grounding them?
Mar 10, 2019, 5:46 pm
#78
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
How many of you who are saying "no problem" are aware of the actual airworthiness issue here? Namely that the MAX employs a new flight control system (MCAS), necessitated by the engine placement with the stretched 737 frame, which automatically pushes the nose downwards in certain circumstances, without pilot involvement. And that Boeing was able to talk the FAA into allowing an exception to the normal rule which would have required pilot training before they could qualify to fly the new aircraft.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
If you’re worried about the MAX because of the lack of training at certain airlines, you should be worried about flying all of the types they operate. If they are lacking on procedure about how to safely operate 737 they are probably lacking in procedures for everything else.
Mar 10, 2019, 5:49 pm
#79
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
2 crashes on a new type of airplane, rightfully gives everyone some pause. No new aircraft should fall, but now we have 2 that have gone straight down.
My wife told me in the morning about the crash, my first question was it a 737 MAX.
I for one am staying away until Boeing gets the issue fixed. No one part, should bring down a modern aircrafy.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 10, 2019 at 9:29 pm Reason: removed quote of deleted content
Mar 10, 2019, 5:52 pm
#80
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
The reason to ground them is because it has established beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not, by modern standards, a safe aircraft. The MAX has less than 300 aircraft-years of operation to date. If it had the same safety level as the 737NG and A320ceo/neo, the chance of losing two of them in 100% fatal hull losses during that period would be less than 1 in 1,000. For context, the DC-10 -- an aircraft widely regarded to have suffered serious safety flaws in the initial design -- still made it over 1,600 aircraft-years of operation before its second 100% fatal hull loss. There is almost certainly something wrong with the MAX.
Mar 10, 2019, 5:59 pm
#81
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
How many of you who are saying "no problem" are aware of the actual airworthiness issue here? Namely that the MAX employs a new flight control system (MCAS), necessitated by the engine placement with the stretched 737 frame, which automatically pushes the nose downwards in certain circumstances, without pilot involvement. And that Boeing was able to talk the FAA into allowing an exception to the normal rule which would have required pilot training before they could qualify to fly the new aircraft.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
- JT610 was dispatched not airworthy to fly as found in the preliminary investigation report. This was due to faulty replacement of the AOA sensor which fed erroneous data to the FMC which lead to the series of control events necessitating the MCAS inputs. MCAS was not certified on an non-airworthy configuration from what I could tell.
- MCAS inputs occur under manual flying when the aircraft enters a low energy state, commanding a nose down movement. MCAS inputs because the aircraft was hand flown into a near stall situation. If it didn't, the aircraft would have stalled.
The ET crash is already deviating some from this, there is a low hour FO (200 hrs), reported trouble with control on take-off (MCAS is not engaged until after flaps are up), and faulty airspeed is indicated (although not confirmed) which is different (although could be similar) than faulty AOA sensor.
Mar 10, 2019, 6:23 pm
#82
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 686
2 crashes on a new type of airplane, rightfully gives everyone some pause. No new aircraft should fall, but now we have 2 that have gone straight down.
My wife told me in the morning about the crash, my first question was it a 737 MAX.
I for one am staying away until Boeing gets the issue fixed. No one part, should bring down a modern aircrafy.
Mar 10, 2019, 6:31 pm
#83
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: In between IAD and DCA
Programs: UA Plat 1.1MM , Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,262
Mar 10, 2019, 6:32 pm
#84
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Israel
Programs: CO OnePass Platinum
Posts: 44
My point is not to nit-pick, my point is that two accidents within a short period of time, while they do not prove that a causal effect exists, certainly *imply* that there could be a problem and that it must be looked at.
Mar 10, 2019, 6:45 pm
#85
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago IL US
Programs: UA 1K; National Executive Elite; Hertz PC & Hotels Galore
Posts: 946
There's a trade war going on...
Mar 10, 2019, 6:45 pm
#86
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,217
The 737 MAX 8, specifically, is not flown by United at this time. UA flies the 737 MAX 9.
Because nobody knows if there's a systemic flaw, there's no way to know if it's limited to the 737 MAX 8 or if the MAX 9 would also be affected. The aircraft avionics are mostly the same; the MAX 9 is a lengthened version of the MAX 8, just as the 737-900 is a lengthened version of the 737-800.
But again, I'd caution everyone against speculation in the absence of evidence. That said, for anyone who will worry anyway: UA currently has 14 737 MAX 9 aircraft in their fleet. They have about 140 737-900s, and about 100 other 737s (-800 and -700).
Because nobody knows if there's a systemic flaw, there's no way to know if it's limited to the 737 MAX 8 or if the MAX 9 would also be affected. The aircraft avionics are mostly the same; the MAX 9 is a lengthened version of the MAX 8, just as the 737-900 is a lengthened version of the 737-800.
But again, I'd caution everyone against speculation in the absence of evidence. That said, for anyone who will worry anyway: UA currently has 14 737 MAX 9 aircraft in their fleet. They have about 140 737-900s, and about 100 other 737s (-800 and -700).
UA has the MAX-9 and orders for the MAX-9 and MAX-10. I again state I am no aviation expert but the forward location of the engine on the MAX is causing the instability and the need for the software information, as my layman brain understands it.
Mar 10, 2019, 6:48 pm
#87
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,217
Mar 10, 2019, 6:57 pm
#88
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: UA 1K MM, HHonors Diamond,PC, Marriott Rewards Gold
Posts: 1,117
How many of you who are saying "no problem" are aware of the actual airworthiness issue here? Namely that the MAX employs a new flight control system (MCAS), necessitated by the engine placement with the stretched 737 frame, which automatically pushes the nose downwards in certain circumstances, without pilot involvement. And that Boeing was able to talk the FAA into allowing an exception to the normal rule which would have required pilot training before they could qualify to fly the new aircraft.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
It is strongly suspected that the MCAS system, combined with a faulty indicator, caused the Lion Air crash. The circumstances surrounding the ET crash suggest the same system may have been involved in that one as well. In short, there is ample reason to have concerns about this aircraft, particularly when flown by airlines that do not have the rigorous safety and training culture of carriers such as UA.
Following the existing protocol for runaway trim will solve any MCAS issues without even understanding how and why it was added to the airframes on Max AC. For whatever reason and we can speculate, these accidents are happening in Africa and Malaysia where pilot training is simply not as good as it can be. Over on airliners.net there’s even analysis of graphic periodicy which aligns with the 10 second MCAS program intervention followed by pilot action.
Mar 10, 2019, 7:12 pm
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...x-caijing-says
Mar 10, 2019, 7:21 pm
#90
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Not to make you anxious but a 767-300 fell out of the sky on approach to Houston a week ago (cargo version).