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, 2:46 pm
#256
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 728
Oh man, you all will just love this. The CSR comes back on and says that she made the change, but "my supervisor said that there is nothing wrong with the plane and if there were the FAA would have grounded them. That crash happened because the pilots made mistakes and in those countries the pilots aren't well trained. So everyone here is perfectly safe flying the MAX." This made me VERY angry and I said that it was outrageous and unfair for them to blame the pilots while the investigation is ongoing and that she and her supervisor should not be saying this to people. She then just said "okay okay" to get me off the phone.
Mar 12, 2019, 2:51 pm
#257
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,104
I don't think we should consider this to be a big deal. United doesn't want to say anything negative about the MAX series as it would then call into question why they haven't grounded their small fleet.
Mar 12, 2019, 2:56 pm
#258
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
(1) I seriously doubt that the CAAC would have said that they had reports when none existed. First of all, Boeing would immediately want to have the details on them, as would the FAA. Second, if they did not exist, it would destroy the CAAC's credibility. (2) I would have expected with one accident, not involving a Chinese plane, for the CAAC to keep its powder dry, and expect Boeing and the FAA to be investigating things quickly and professionally.
I am not saying that a trade war did/did not impact their decision to ground the planes (which has now been seconded the EU, so not out in left field...) but I find no reasonable situation where the CAAC would lie about having reports from Chinese pilots of similar issues.
Yes, and as AB Fan noted, Airbus swung into action, going so far as to spend Millions of $$$ to raise the plane off the south Atlantic sea floor. Boeing seems to have gone into a defensive crouch with the LionAir Crash - which I assumed from their statements was a one off, failure of Lion Air to train in a new system. Now that this turns out to be a suspect statement - with a new reflash of the system coming in a few weeks - Boeing has frankly substantially decreased my trust in them. I am getting a sneaking suspicion that having cut corners on the MAX (being beated out of the box by the neo, and lacking the will and engineering resources for a new aircraft) and with it being about 70% of sales, that Boeing is not exactly being forthcoming.
+1
I am not saying that a trade war did/did not impact their decision to ground the planes (which has now been seconded the EU, so not out in left field...) but I find no reasonable situation where the CAAC would lie about having reports from Chinese pilots of similar issues.
Yes, and as AB Fan noted, Airbus swung into action, going so far as to spend Millions of $$$ to raise the plane off the south Atlantic sea floor. Boeing seems to have gone into a defensive crouch with the LionAir Crash - which I assumed from their statements was a one off, failure of Lion Air to train in a new system. Now that this turns out to be a suspect statement - with a new reflash of the system coming in a few weeks - Boeing has frankly substantially decreased my trust in them. I am getting a sneaking suspicion that having cut corners on the MAX (being beated out of the box by the neo, and lacking the will and engineering resources for a new aircraft) and with it being about 70% of sales, that Boeing is not exactly being forthcoming.
+1
It took until September 2009 for European and US authorities to force pitot replacement
FAA orders airplane part replaced after Air France crash - CNN.com
With AF447 Airbus knew of the issue in advance - and had a replacement option in place - why didn't it raise the severity of it to force airlines or authorities to ground the aircraft and get it done? Could have saved those lives.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus are saints on these matters of trading profitability vs risk.
Airbus is still dealing with the criminal investigation into AF447
https://www.efe.com/efe/english/worl...000262-3772181
It was also held liable for a crash of an A320 in Strasbourg that killed over 80 people - with the design of a control implicated
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fr...76691420061107
The political nature of these 'Airbus' vs 'Boeing' discussions is so predicable...fun to inject facts and history
Last edited by cerealmarketer; Mar 12, 2019 at 3:09 pm
Mar 12, 2019, 3:01 pm
#259
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,359
Mar 12, 2019, 3:15 pm
#261
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-averse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:17 pm
#262
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
Absolutely agree. However, when you're getting cornered by the rest of the world, you better make sure that nothing happens with any of the B3XM that you keep flying. Because even the slightest unrelated incident involving this type of aircraft will cause a media and public opinion backlash that would make the Dao case look like a walk in the park, possibly severely tarnishing UA's safety reputation. UA won't get the credit that ET got.
We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-adverse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.
We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-adverse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.
With regard to the ET crash, there are scant public facts available to suggest a causal theory, and so United is left to rely on its systems, training and procedures, which it believes to be safe, to ensure continued safe operation. Once actionable data is available, it may or may not change that belief. But any grounding, at this point, would be purely speculative and nothing more than acceding to the mob. For some airlines or regulatory authorities, the benefit to that approach outweighs the commercial and reputational risk.
Last edited by EWR764; Mar 12, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Mar 12, 2019, 3:21 pm
#263
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 14,998
Just a data point here, I'm scheduled to fly the MAX 9 tomorrow from OGG to LAX. I'm on the phone with UA right now and being told that the pilots are well trained and the MAX 8 is not the same as the 9, and so on. Resistance to changing me to a different flight (on a 772) even though there's tons of room and it's listed as K9 (I have a K class ticket). Anyone else have a different experience?
Update: After the rep consulted with a supervisor the change was made.
Update: After the rep consulted with a supervisor the change was made.
?I know - different issues...
Mar 12, 2019, 3:23 pm
#264
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
I confess that was part of it. :-). BUT I really do feel uncomfortable with the MAX now and plan to avoid it in travel for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by JNelson113; Mar 12, 2019 at 6:55 pm
Mar 12, 2019, 3:25 pm
#265
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Absolutely agree. However, when you're getting cornered by the rest of the world, you better make sure that nothing happens with any of the B3XM that you keep flying. Because even the slightest unrelated incident involving this type of aircraft will cause a media and public opinion backlash that would make the Dao case look like a walk in the park, possibly severely tarnishing UA's safety reputation. UA won't get the credit that ET got.
We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-averse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.
We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-averse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.
Remember Valujet didn't go out of business after its crash. It just acquired another airline, created the Airtran brand and kept the Valujet management team.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:26 pm
#266
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
However, while you and I agree, the public opinion will not agree if an incident occurs.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:49 pm
#267
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
If United is seeing a book-away factor, or people clamoring to reschedule their MAX flights, they might consider doing so for commercial purposes, but not until that point, or the FAA takes action.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:57 pm
#268
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 728
From a customer service perspective I do consider it a big deal. If the policy UA is implementing is to allow the change, I don't need a phone agent coming back on the line to lecture me after I have specifically made and been granted the request.
Mar 12, 2019, 3:58 pm
#269
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 27
The Lion Air plane crashed due to a faulty sensor that they knew about previously and decided not to replace coupled with a crew without the skills and systems knowledge to handle the problem. Ethiopian happened a couple of days ago and the cause is _________??? Based on this, the entire worldwide Max fleet needs to be grounded based on really poor and typically sensationalistic and mostly incorrect media reporting and angry social media posts made by people who believe the inaccurate sensationalist reporting?
I will only reiterate that the Max is a safe airplane and I would step on one today and fly it with zero apprehension.
I will only reiterate that the Max is a safe airplane and I would step on one today and fly it with zero apprehension.
Last edited by Realunited; Mar 12, 2019 at 4:06 pm Reason: punctuation
Mar 12, 2019, 4:01 pm
#270
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
But again, I agree that it all boils down to the assessment(s) you mentioned. If UA is confident that the risk of an incident involving a B39M is so low that it outweighs the cost of grounding the plane to avert the worst PR disaster an airline could ever imagine, it should definitely keep flying the plane as long as they are regulatory allowed. And I hope they do, as I'm flying a UA B39M soon with no plans of changing my reservation.