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
#106
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: COS
Programs: UA Gold/1.5MM (several years running now!), Marriott LTTE, Hertz Prez
Posts: 1,899
Within the context of aviation, my confidence in regulators is less than complete. Having said that, I do place complete trust in the professional aviators in command of aircraft operated by the likes of UA - in particular UA an other such legacy carriers. If there's a problem in which they perceive to fall outside of their own ability to safely manage, I expect they'll make that known in some fashion or other, and much sooner rather than later at this point...
#107
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Portland OR
Programs: United 1K 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum, Hilton HHonors Gold
Posts: 560
Let’s not forget that some 14 hours ago United posted its condolences and prayers for the families and friends of the victims of ET302.
#108
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,443
I’m a pilot and A&P and schooled in aircraft accident investigation. I ageee with everything you’ve just said and even the way you’ve stated it. Kudos.
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.
People are free to make their own risk assessments in the meantime, naturally, and I am by no means concluding that the 737MAX is, without doubt, an acceptably safe airplane. But it's going to take some more evidence-gathering to credibly answer the questions the traveling public has about the safety of the type.
#109
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,420
150+ deaths, to be precise. This is not like calculating the risk of a misconnect, where the worst-case scenario involves a forced overnight at FRA. That risk I'm willing to accept. Plunging into the ground at 600+ mph because the pilots can't control the aircraft, on the other hand, is not a risk I am inclined to voluntarily undertake. I think we will see more carriers pulling these aircraft until there are more definitive answers.
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: AS 75K, DL Silver, UA Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Platinum + LT Gold
Posts: 10,466
#111
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,178
Stupid question: if this happens when the plane is still very close to the ground, does it give the pilots enough time to run through the checklist to "flip off the stabilizer cutout switches, in keeping with the emergency checklist "? Or, the checklist is in their mind and they can do this very quickly?
When you are hand-flying a 737 it frequently rolling in trim without your input. There are various systems that are doing this for various reasons. MCAS is a new system which can also run the trim when you are hand-flying the airplane. The pilot has no way of knowing which system is responsible for any particular trim input. All we know is that the trim is moving. If the trim is moving in a direction that we do not want we use the trim switches (thumb switches on the control yoke) to correct the mistrim condition which immediately stops any of these inputs and retrims the aircraft toward the desired trim state. Those switches are being used frequently while hand-flying the airplane in normal operations. In the case of MCAS, this starts the five-second pause and will be followed by another MCAS event if the underlying cause of the MCAS activation has not been corrected.
In the first accident flight (Malaysia) the accident crew, according to the released DFDR data, had 26 MCAS events and stopped 25 of them with opposite trim input. What they apparently failed to do was to complete the runaway stabilizer procedure which would have led them to throw the two stabilizer trim cutout switches which are within easy reach of either pilot. This would have stopped all electric trim inputs and left them with manual trim with which they could have completed the flight safely. We don't yet know why they didn't complete the procedure. We also don't know why the airplane was dispatched several times after similar stab trim events without the underlying problem being fixed.
There has not been any information released about this new accident that can either confirm or rule out a stabilizer runaway situation but that is something that will be known quite quickly once the DFDR is found and the data analysed.
#112
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hoboken, NJ; Pembroke Pines, FL
Programs: CO Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,939
I'm uncertain how useful it will be to anyone else, but I found the explanations about the following two incidents provided me good context in which to think about air safety:
1. Birgenair Flight 301 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301
2. XL Airways Germany Flight 888T - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Air...ny_Flight_888T
In both cases, instrumentation gave the pilots incorrect information which resulted in a loss of control of the aircraft and the tragic loss of all aboard.
Previous to watching the Air Disasters shows on these crashes, I would have discounted erroneous reporting from any single instrument to cause an experienced commercial airline pilot to lose control of his/her aircraft, but afterwards I feel more aware of how important correct instrumentation is to flying.
I am confident, but not recklessly overconfident, about the expertise, experience, and training of mainline pilots at major U.S. carriers. I'd have no problem with riding a MAX with one of them at the stick. Has any of them chimed in on airliners.net? I'm sure they've been discussing the incidents.
1. Birgenair Flight 301 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301
2. XL Airways Germany Flight 888T - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Air...ny_Flight_888T
In both cases, instrumentation gave the pilots incorrect information which resulted in a loss of control of the aircraft and the tragic loss of all aboard.
Previous to watching the Air Disasters shows on these crashes, I would have discounted erroneous reporting from any single instrument to cause an experienced commercial airline pilot to lose control of his/her aircraft, but afterwards I feel more aware of how important correct instrumentation is to flying.
I am confident, but not recklessly overconfident, about the expertise, experience, and training of mainline pilots at major U.S. carriers. I'd have no problem with riding a MAX with one of them at the stick. Has any of them chimed in on airliners.net? I'm sure they've been discussing the incidents.
#113
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: North Sentinel Island
Programs: UA Gold, BONVOY TIT
Posts: 777
You're right; wrong description for ET. At JRO, they had managed to lose my electronic ticket entirely and had to reissue a new one. That was the return flight. My wife's ticketing was intact. It took about 6 months to get mileage credit because I apparently didn't ever show as a paying customer... they might have put me in as a non-rev? It didn't seem like a big deal to the JRO agent, but it caused a lot of grief down the line. My UA connecting flight was intact. Eventually ET submitted info to UA showing I'd flown the JRO-ADD segment twice, same flight. I did tell United about it and the CSR told me after what I'd been through, I'd earned the extra miles. :-) Booked on ET stock.
The sticking strictly to regulations might have come up on the ADD-IAD segment, with a middle of the night refueling at FCO. You've never heard anyone bark as harshly as the FAs telling people they could not use the lavs while the refueling was in process. 1 hour, 15 minutes on the ground.
The sticking strictly to regulations might have come up on the ADD-IAD segment, with a middle of the night refueling at FCO. You've never heard anyone bark as harshly as the FAs telling people they could not use the lavs while the refueling was in process. 1 hour, 15 minutes on the ground.
#114
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,443
The flight data recorder has been located as of early this morning and some actionable data will be available in short order... that will be the point at which a grounding or emergency inspection/AD can be implemented.
#115
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: In between IAD and DCA
Programs: UA Plat 1.1MM , Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,262
https://onemileatatime.com/airlines-ground-737-max/
Cayman Airlines and Indonesia ground the plane as well. As Lucky says, I'd expect more to come out. Especially if the black boxes show issues similar to the LionAir crash.
Interesting quote from American Airlines in there:
Cayman Airlines and Indonesia ground the plane as well. As Lucky says, I'd expect more to come out. Especially if the black boxes show issues similar to the LionAir crash.
Interesting quote from American Airlines in there:
American, has said that they “have full confidence in the aircraft and [their] crew members, who are the best and most experienced in the industry”
#116
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
It is premature to call for a fleet grounding or FAA cert revocation (although China has ordered all MAX examples grounded, and ET has parked all theirs). It is quite right to be concerned about the possibility of intrinsic design flaws in the planform, engine config, or software. Too early to tell what's up but you'd be foolish to ignore the data we've got, which is: two similar-profile new aircraft hull losses on climbout in less than five months, nearly 350 dead.
Hark back to the first version of the deHavilland Comet: two hull losses four months apart (in October and March, oddly enough: 1952-53, with a third two months later. The aircraft structure was fundamentally flawed but the Comet remained in service, with two further hull losses in 1954. More aggressive action would have prevented at least the latter three incidents. Hopefully we are a little smarter about risk response nearly 70 years later.
Hark back to the first version of the deHavilland Comet: two hull losses four months apart (in October and March, oddly enough: 1952-53, with a third two months later. The aircraft structure was fundamentally flawed but the Comet remained in service, with two further hull losses in 1954. More aggressive action would have prevented at least the latter three incidents. Hopefully we are a little smarter about risk response nearly 70 years later.
#117
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Malta
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 671
- Mine too. As others have observed, its been enough for China to ground all 97 of its 737-MAX800 fleet. (For those who care, I read it on MSN). I was within hours of booking a flight on one of these, but not anymore. Its been interesting and informative to read the differing views on this thread from those who have more technical expertise on the topic than I do.
#118
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,214
I found the response (#2 in the thread) from @cmd320 far more helpful than your comment. I obviously did not know the answer else I would not have posted the question. I learn news things in FT all the time.
#119
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: ORD | LGA | 2E
Programs: UA GS 1.6MM UC | AA CK 0.7MM AC | Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist | Hertz PC
Posts: 1,052
We should know within 24 hours what the impact of the second crash will have on Wall Street, hysteria notwithstanding. It will be interesting to see how major US carrier-customers of the MAX manage the imminent spin crisis. How many people will really book away from flying on these airplanes?
#120
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,220