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, 5:25 pm
#271
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,674
Of course it won't... but what makes an incident meaningfully more likely today, or tomorrow, versus Saturday, or any time before ET302?
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.
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, 6:02 pm
#272
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: UA, Some Others
Posts: 286
I don't consider myself hysterical, nor a nervous flyer. Ive been 1K for years. But there is no reason to be illogical: Just ignoring the circumstances is limited to the US now. Most os the world has grounded the MAX8 until the problem can be evaluated. So I changed my flight off a Max9 today. If the FAA can't wrap their heads around reasonable response, then we as informed travelers must.
This seems like an addressable problem with the plane's software, but not grounding the planes is for only one reason: it costs airlines money and may make Boeing look bad. One more crash and this will be a case study about how not to respond in the corporate world. That circumstance also costs money. Boeing, airlines and regulators are placing a bet right now; I hope its a bet they win.
This seems like an addressable problem with the plane's software, but not grounding the planes is for only one reason: it costs airlines money and may make Boeing look bad. One more crash and this will be a case study about how not to respond in the corporate world. That circumstance also costs money. Boeing, airlines and regulators are placing a bet right now; I hope its a bet they win.
Mar 12, 2019, 6:50 pm
#273
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,369
For me, a "reasonable response" is to investigate to determine whether or not there is a problem, rather than simply to assume that there must be a problem. The 737 pilots on this thread have repeatedly stated that they have no qualms about flying the 737 MAX. The FAA has stated that the plane is airworthy. The manufacturer has years' worth of tests to back up their claim that the plane is safe. People who are changing off of the plane are reacting to something that may be a coincidence.
So please, do not tell me what I, as an "informed traveler," "must" do.
Mar 12, 2019, 6:52 pm
#274
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,107
That's absolutely right, but cost decisions are made all the time in product development... the 787-10 would be a perfect 777-200ER replacement, but Boeing would have to redesign the MLG to support the increased gross weights for a closer match in range, and that was nixed for cost reasons.
....
....
Mar 12, 2019, 7:29 pm
#275
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,674
Most worrisome is this passage from the docs. This is a 737MAX pilot:
Mar 12, 2019, 7:37 pm
#276
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: UA, Some Others
Posts: 286
Informed by what? You remain many times more likely to be injured or killed on the way to the airport than on the plane, no matter what plane it's on. Since most accidents happen during takeoff and landing, it's possible that someone who added a connection to avoid the MAX, in the name of safety, actually increased their own personal danger (by a minuscule amount).
For me, a "reasonable response" is to investigate to determine whether or not there is a problem, rather than simply to assume that there must be a problem. The 737 pilots on this thread have repeatedly stated that they have no qualms about flying the 737 MAX. The FAA has stated that the plane is airworthy. The manufacturer has years' worth of tests to back up their claim that the plane is safe. People who are changing off of the plane are reacting to something that may be a coincidence.
So please, do not tell me what I, as an "informed traveler," "must" do.
For me, a "reasonable response" is to investigate to determine whether or not there is a problem, rather than simply to assume that there must be a problem. The 737 pilots on this thread have repeatedly stated that they have no qualms about flying the 737 MAX. The FAA has stated that the plane is airworthy. The manufacturer has years' worth of tests to back up their claim that the plane is safe. People who are changing off of the plane are reacting to something that may be a coincidence.
So please, do not tell me what I, as an "informed traveler," "must" do.
Mar 12, 2019, 7:48 pm
#277
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,214
I am not a pilot but can read enough to know there is a potential design flaw related to the engine placement on the MAX.
No offense but the US has some of the weakest consumer protection laws in the developed world.
It is a cost benefit analysis for Boeing and the airlines that continue to fly the plane. Cost of payouts for lives lost compared to lost revenue of not selling/flying the plane. It is all about the $$. (IMHO).
No offense but the US has some of the weakest consumer protection laws in the developed world.
It is a cost benefit analysis for Boeing and the airlines that continue to fly the plane. Cost of payouts for lives lost compared to lost revenue of not selling/flying the plane. It is all about the $$. (IMHO).
Mar 12, 2019, 7:58 pm
#278
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
However, your snarky comment at the end did make me laugh, well played sir! That was funny.
Mar 12, 2019, 8:00 pm
#279
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Programs: Hilton-Diamond Lifetime Platinum AA UA, WN-CP, SPG Gold.
Posts: 7,377
Most accidents are pilot error,
We have had no problems here, maybe better trained pilots.
I have a license, and the weather will kill you, so will panic.
Do the math, lot of hours up there, and very few accidents,
Ground the Automobile
We have had no problems here, maybe better trained pilots.
I have a license, and the weather will kill you, so will panic.
Do the math, lot of hours up there, and very few accidents,
Ground the Automobile
Mar 12, 2019, 8:09 pm
#280
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: AS 75K, DL Silver, UA Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Platinum + LT Gold
Posts: 10,468
Mar 12, 2019, 8:32 pm
#282
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,369
The latter can have an effect on me. The former really don't.What I don't agree with is the spreading of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) worthy of Microsoft in their heyday. Not only do I find it unfair, and representative of a growing trend in our society to leap to conclusions before the facts are known, I also try to keep in mind the considerable population for whom flying is already nerve-wracking. The last thing people need is more reasons to be afraid, particularly when the actual level of risk is not commensurate with the amount of discussion. Flying remains far, far, far safer than any other means of transport.
As a fellow Texan, I imagine you've seen the road signs all over the state that count up the number of people who have died in automobile crashes each year, just within the state. Something like 10x more people died in cars in Texas last year than have died in the entire world in Boeing 737 MAX accidents.
Regardless, it's the not the quiet abstainers with whom I take issue. It's the loud ones.
Mar 12, 2019, 8:38 pm
#283
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,189
I don't consider myself hysterical, nor a nervous flyer. Ive been 1K for years. But there is no reason to be illogical: Just ignoring the circumstances is limited to the US now. Most os the world has grounded the MAX8 until the problem can be evaluated. So I changed my flight off a Max9 today. If the FAA can't wrap their heads around reasonable response, then we as informed travelers must.
The people I know at FAA or supporting them take air safety seriously and are much less political than other departments or agencies in the government.
We as travelers must always make our own decisions based on our own evaluation of what's in our best interests but that doesn't mean the FAA isn't wrapping their heads around a reasonable response. A lot of the reactions I see on the board are far from reasonable. Understandable but not based on Reason. In addition, I would bet very few (if any) of us on this forum know what the FAA is doing.
Mar 12, 2019, 8:39 pm
#284
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 729
As I stated on page 1 of this thread, I have been silently avoiding the MAX since lionair. Nobody would have even known that, in fact my partner for whom I book all out trips didn’t know it, except that OP asked so I gave my answer. This incident just confirms what I was already doing.
To me, it’s precisely because I feel well informed that I am avoiding it. A 767 crashed here in Houston last month and I’m not avoiding the 767 for the same reason. Everyone can do what they want but the preachiness on this thread is ridiculous.
I still maintain the most shocking thing I saw was the UA phone agent’s commentary referenced earlier.
Mar 12, 2019, 8:45 pm
#285
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DSM, BKK or anywhere with an airport
Programs: UA 2P, HH Gold
Posts: 1,018
The pilots in this document say quite different things. Several instances of this system forcing an unexpected nose-down event. Were I a passenger on those flights, it would be anything from anxious to scary, depending on how quickly the pilots could correct the situation. And they shouldn't have to. Planes simply shouldn't do this.
Most worrisome is this passage from the docs. This is a 737MAX pilot:
Most worrisome is this passage from the docs. This is a 737MAX pilot: