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
#121
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
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.
There’s been a lot of keyboard warriors on this site lately. Don’t get discouraged to ask questions.
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,224
And Chinese aviation authorities have always been very picky and fast to act, so suggesting it's because of trade war is really stretching it.
However, the motivations are very different here.
Ethiopian Airlines has every reason to ground the jet until they regain confidence in it.
The USA has every reason not to ground the jet. The FAA works very (some say too) closely with Boeing and whilst the two accidents superficially look connected, the FAA is going to figure it can wait for preliminaries from the black box.
Other countries will simply look at this on a balance of risk and reward. China has always been very concerned about risk. Europe, for example, has very few of the type flying so is not going to rock the boat. It's not an unreasonable thing to do to ground the plane in the circumstances and those who want an easy life and don't care all that much about the commercial consequences will tend towards grounding.
However, the motivations are very different here.
Ethiopian Airlines has every reason to ground the jet until they regain confidence in it.
The USA has every reason not to ground the jet. The FAA works very (some say too) closely with Boeing and whilst the two accidents superficially look connected, the FAA is going to figure it can wait for preliminaries from the black box.
Other countries will simply look at this on a balance of risk and reward. China has always been very concerned about risk. Europe, for example, has very few of the type flying so is not going to rock the boat. It's not an unreasonable thing to do to ground the plane in the circumstances and those who want an easy life and don't care all that much about the commercial consequences will tend towards grounding.
#123
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 729
Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):
Casey Flores@caseyjflores
·
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP
4
#124
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AA EXP, HH Diamond, MR Gold, Avis PC, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,252
I've been trying to avoid MAX planes since the Lion Air accident but I'm not being hysterical about it. I had an equipment sub on an AA flight in January with a MAX 8 and I still flew it. Will I book a MAX when alternatives are available? No. If one is subbed in or there really aren't any other options? I'll still fly it, but maybe just take a Xanax ahead of time.
#125
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: DTW/MBS
Programs: UA 1K, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Globalist, Formerly Starbucks Gold
Posts: 3,525
The bottom of this article has an interesting hint of where UA might be going with this very question. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ic/3127692002/
Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):
Casey Flores@caseyjflores
· 2h
Replying to @unitedThanks! Any plans to get rid of them? I only fly with you guys and am nervous as ever about them now. I understand if you’re in a “no comment” mode on this.
United Airlines
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP
4
6:51 AM - Mar 11, 2019
Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):
Casey Flores@caseyjflores
· 2h
Replying to @unitedThanks! Any plans to get rid of them? I only fly with you guys and am nervous as ever about them now. I understand if you’re in a “no comment” mode on this.
United Airlines
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP
4
6:51 AM - Mar 11, 2019
#126
AFA (FA Union representing UAL FAs) Statement on ET302
https://www.afacwa.org/afa_statement_on_et_302
(bolding mine)
"Conduct an investigation" and not "grounding" is, I think, the right way to go about this until more is known.
https://www.afacwa.org/afa_statement_on_et_302
“Crew and passengers are expressing concern about the 737 MAX 8 following a second crash, with similar characteristics to the Lion Air Flight 610 crash. It is vitally important that U.S. airlines work with Boeing, the FAA, and the NTSB to address concerns and take steps to ensure confidence for the traveling public and working crews. While it is important that we not draw conclusions without all of the facts, in the wake of a second accident, regulators, manufacturers, and airlines must take steps to address concerns immediately. AFA is formally requesting the FAA conduct an investigation into the 737 MAX.”
"Our hearts go out to the family and loved ones of crew and passengers on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Nairobi, Kenya. Passengers and crew represented 35 nationalities. AFA-CWA is offering our support to our sisters and brothers at Ethiopian Airlines."Any Flight Attendants, family or affected aviation community may call AFA EAP at (redacted) .
"Our hearts go out to the family and loved ones of crew and passengers on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to Nairobi, Kenya. Passengers and crew represented 35 nationalities. AFA-CWA is offering our support to our sisters and brothers at Ethiopian Airlines."Any Flight Attendants, family or affected aviation community may call AFA EAP at (redacted) .
"Conduct an investigation" and not "grounding" is, I think, the right way to go about this until more is known.
#127
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
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...
#128
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Pacific
Programs: UA GS, Lifetime 4 MM, BA Gold, , Marriott Lifetime Titanium Elite, Marriott Ambassador Elite
Posts: 476
I looked at my 16 pending flights this month and in April, and I have one 737. If United swaps the equipment out with a 737 MAX8, I won't fly it. I haven't felt comfortable flying it since the Lion Air accident, and Boeing has not done enough to make me feel safe.
I was in a DC-10 accident decades ago, and I just won't fly a plane that's iffy.
I was in a DC-10 accident decades ago, and I just won't fly a plane that's iffy.
#130
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I've been trying to avoid MAX planes since the Lion Air accident but I'm not being hysterical about it. I had an equipment sub on an AA flight in January with a MAX 8 and I still flew it. Will I book a MAX when alternatives are available? No. If one is subbed in or there really aren't any other options? I'll still fly it, but maybe just take a Xanax ahead of time.
It appeared - and Boeing claimed - that the Lion Air crash was a result of a failure of training on a new fly-by wire trim system for the nose trim. Boeing made a change, and did not update the training. But there is now a lot of discussion that this is actually the result of a system put on because the fundamental dynamics of the 60 year old air frame are now less stable than is optimum, which requires automated systems work well for flight.
The problem is that McDonald-Douglas (lets just call a spade a spade, the company is really in its management and approach now McDonald-Douglas, it is no longer the Boeing that build the best, safest, aircraft, and was pilot focused) - focused on doing in its unions and ofshoring design work to sub-contractors to reduce its expenditures - did not invest in a new airframe. The 737, launched in 1967, was designed to carry 85 passengers on a relatively short (max range 1500 nm or so) stage length.
A combination of massively stretching the air-frame, stretching the range, along with engines that are much, much larger, heavier, and bigger (due to larger fans for lower fuel burn) is a plane that wants to stick its nose up in the air and stall when in the air, and wants to put its tail down on the ground when at rest.
Now it may be nothing, but I have a nagging suspicion that Boeing has compromised fundamental characteristics of the original air-frame, so that it is not good rugged design any longer, and their efforts to fix what the air frame no longer naturally gives, via fly by wire fixes, is not working out so well.
Given that I am mostly airline agnostic at this point, and am willing to pay more to fly the airline that I want, and also that I love the A321, including its neo version, its a much nicer plane than the MAX, I am letting the precautionary principle come into play.
#132
Join Date: Oct 2015
Programs: SWA CP, UA MP, Hilton G, SPG G
Posts: 69
The bottom of this article has an interesting hint of where UA might be going with this very question. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ic/3127692002/
Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):
Casey Flores@caseyjflores
· 2h
Replying to @unitedThanks! Any plans to get rid of them? I only fly with you guys and am nervous as ever about them now. I understand if you’re in a “no comment” mode on this.
United Airlines
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP
4
6:51 AM - Mar 11, 2019
Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):
Casey Flores@caseyjflores
· 2h
Replying to @unitedThanks! Any plans to get rid of them? I only fly with you guys and am nervous as ever about them now. I understand if you’re in a “no comment” mode on this.
United Airlines
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP
4
6:51 AM - Mar 11, 2019
my how the turntables turn... over on the Southwest rapid rewards section, their customers are complaining because Southwest will not change their flights off the MAX...and United is doing it for free.
#134
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
There is nothing to suggest that this problem is specific to the MAX8. The vast bulk of the flying hours so far on the variant are on the MAX8, since it was the first one released. If as is being suggested the issue relates to air-frame deficiencies and a poorly performing/executed fly-by wire system to try to make up for these deficiencies, then the problem will extend to the MAX9, which has the same basic systems. If anything, I would expect the flight performance of the MAX9 to be even more sub-optimal than the MAX8.
This is a very wise move by UA,^ and a stupid move by SWA if they stick with it. This story is leading on nearly every media source today. Folks would would not know the difference between a 737 and an A320, or perhaps even the difference between a 737 and a A330 are suddenly paying attention....
This is a very wise move by UA,^ and a stupid move by SWA if they stick with it. This story is leading on nearly every media source today. Folks would would not know the difference between a 737 and an A320, or perhaps even the difference between a 737 and a A330 are suddenly paying attention....
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 11, 2019 at 8:43 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
#135
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 30,005
This is a very wise move by UA,^ and a stupid move by SWA if they stick with it. This story is leading on nearly every media source today. Folks would would not know the difference between a 737 and an A320, or perhaps even the difference between a 737 and a A330 are suddenly paying attention....