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 12, 2019, 11:44 am
#226
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 262
Let me add why a 200hr first officer makes a difference. At least in the US, first officers must have at least 1500 hrs and a type rating in the aircraft which means they have been trained and tested (maneuvers and systems knowledge) to the same standards as a captain so their knowledge and skills are invaluable in an emergency situation. Some situations need 2 fully knowledgeable brains to lead to a successful outcome and 200hrs total time is slightly better than a passenger from 32F coming up to offer advise.
Mar 12, 2019, 11:46 am
#227
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: Hertz PC
Posts: 657
No one is saying that the FO was flying the aircraft, but it usually takes the teamwork of both pilots to successfully navigate an emergency situation. I don't think anyone is denigrating the pilots in this situation, just pointing out that the it would have been better to have both pilots "seasoned", which might have led to a different outcome regardless if the airplanes control systems were a contributing cause.
Mar 12, 2019, 11:55 am
#228
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,189
There is no logic behind it, but the accident in 1991 here in COS sticks with me. I rarely think about it, unless I’m making the approach from the south. Doesn’t matter about the aircraft type, whether it’s a small single engine, a UAX airplane. I arrived about 30 minutes after the accident as simply a drive by and will never forget it. Lost 2 people that I didn’t know personally, but my siblings did.
All of that said, I want nothing to do with the MAX until this is resolved.
All of that said, I want nothing to do with the MAX until this is resolved.
Mar 12, 2019, 11:56 am
#229
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 564
Apparently that means the Captain is required to be on the stick for take-off and landings at that particular airport. So, that would have precluded the FO from being in control. Regardless, whomever is at the stick needs help in an emergency. A seasoned pilot by your side is always better than one who is not.
Mar 12, 2019, 11:59 am
#230
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Portland OR
Programs: United 1K 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum, Hilton HHonors Gold
Posts: 560
The MAX (both -8 and -9) has now been banned by EASA from all European (Common Aviation Area) airspace.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
Mar 12, 2019, 12:15 pm
#231
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,335
The MAX (both -8 and -9) has now been banned by EASA from all European (Common Aviation Area) airspace.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
Mar 12, 2019, 12:17 pm
#232
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
The MAX (both -8 and -9) has now been banned by EASA from all European (Common Aviation Area) airspace.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...rations-europe
And I highlight again what I posted above from the WaPost, Chinese authorities expressly said they had reports from Chinese pilots of issues consistent with the failure mode suspected in both crashes. A large part of these investigations is identifying other similar events that did not result in crashes.
Mar 12, 2019, 12:19 pm
#233
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Mar 12, 2019, 12:23 pm
#234
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATL
Posts: 516
You may be right. Based on this line from avherald it could be read either way: "The captain was with Ethiopian Airlines for 9 years and had about 8000 hours of flight experience, a first officer with 200 flight hours assisted[...]".
Mar 12, 2019, 12:27 pm
#235
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,155
I’m surprised UA hasn’t quietly sidelined their 14 Max9. It isn’t a network workhorse like their other 737s.
Mar 12, 2019, 12:39 pm
#236
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,364
And I highlight again what I posted above from the WaPost, Chinese authorities expressly said they had reports from Chinese pilots of issues consistent with the failure mode suspected in both crashes. A large part of these investigations is identifying other similar events that did not result in crashes.
Mar 12, 2019, 12:45 pm
#237
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
How Many Stability Accidents Has the 737 (all series) Experienced
I remember the 1994 accident of USAir Flight 427 where the 737 fell out of the sky. Was planning to take the flight in 2 days on the PIT-PBI segment. The day I took the non-fatl segment the number was changed to 2427.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
Mar 12, 2019, 12:47 pm
#238
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,106
That's hard to say as it's possible to take it either way. They could be lobbing a grenade or maybe they held off until now as they didn't want to fan the flames during the US/China negotiations. I'm not smart enough to know.
Mar 12, 2019, 12:48 pm
#239
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATL
Posts: 516
I remember the 1994 accident of USAir Flight 427 where the 737 fell out of the sky. Was planning to take the flight in 2 days on the PIT-PBI segment. The day I took the non-fatl segment the number was changed to 2427.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
Mar 12, 2019, 12:50 pm
#240
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
I remember the 1994 accident of USAir Flight 427 where the 737 fell out of the sky. Was planning to take the flight in 2 days on the PIT-PBI segment. The day I took the non-fatl segment the number was changed to 2427.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427