Old Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
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.

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
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
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
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



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.




Print Wikipost

B737MAX Recertification - Archive

Old Mar 13, 2019, 9:20 am
  #316  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by skidooman
In the meantime, I am just as human as anyone else. I checked my upcoming flights. Some are on B737 800 and 900, in a month. Can't say it makes me feel reassured.
Which, if you have been paying attention to this thread and related news are NOT MAX aircraft. Those are the pre MAX 737's. MAX aircraft have it in the description.

Unless of course you have no confidence in ANY Boeing aircraft. In which case I wish you luck being able to access many cities in the US without setting foot on a Boeing product.
FlyngSvyr is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 9:32 am
  #317  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,425
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
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:

Suffice to say the journalist who queried the ASRS database is no Bob Woodward... it's public record and I had occasion to read each of the 19 current entries regarding issues with the 737MAX series. A few notable findings:

- ACN 1593017 (the 'smoking gun' cited in the news article above) submitted in November 2018, lists a litany of complaints, post-Lion Air, about the MCAS system and pilot training on the MAX, but notably, does not actually involve a flight, or any specific, experienced anomaly, which is generally a prerequisite, but not mandatory, for an ASRS report. Instead, it reads more like a disgruntled (AA or WN) pilot venting his concerns... most of which, meanwhile, have been corrected in subsequent manual and checklist releases, see the lines which immediately precede the quoted bit, emphasis mine:

This description is not currently in the 737 Flight Manual Part 2, nor the Boeing FCOM, though it will be added to them soon. This communication highlights that an entire system is not described in our Flight Manual. This system is now the subject of an AD.
- the most "damning" actual inflight report (ACN 1597380) involves an uncommanded descent during cruise, which was immediately identified and corrected with no further issues, while autopilot was engaged. Autopilot on = no MCAS, so no immediately-apparent link to the Lion Air crash, which would support an argument that the type should be grounded
- another (ACN 1593701) discusses an uncommanded level-off during VNAV autopilot mode, at cruise, when a climb was instructed by ATC. The reporting pilot noted human errors. Again, autopilot was engaged in a different phase of flight than the Lion Air or Ethiopian cases, so no MCAS and not any sort of evidence as to why the MAX should be grounded
- ACN 1590012 involves an autothrottle anomaly during initial climb, that was identified and immediately corrected by the pilot. I'm not sure if MCAS is active when autothrottles are engaged, but A/T has not been cited as causal in the Lion Air crash

This is yet another example of not putting a great deal of faith in the technical accuracy of general media reporting on aviation accidents.

Originally Posted by n198ua
I asked this upthread and I'm not sure I was answered directly, so here goes. If you're a pilot flying the Max and the MCAS engages and you're thinking "whoa, we don't want the MCAS here, this is not going to end well"; can you simply reach up, flip a toggle switch, and fly the damn thing manually ?
For the MCAS to engage as designed, the airplane is being flown manually. If a pilot receives unwanted stabilizer trim inputs that do not abate after applying counter trim, then, ordinarily, a runaway stabilizer checklist is completed, which will discontinue any automatic trim function (on the MAX, either speed trim or MCAS). To disable the MCAS, a pilot can alternatively engage the autopilot or select flaps 1. By design, that cuts out the MCAS logic.
EWR764 is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 10:04 am
  #318  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 8,954
Canada just grounded it. At the end of the day, the FAA and Boeing are going to look really foolish for not doing anything.
PsiFighter37 is online now  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 10:11 am
  #319  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MFR
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,872
Originally Posted by PsiFighter37
Canada just grounded it. At the end of the day, the FAA and Boeing are going to look really foolish for not doing anything.
OR...maybe the rest of the world will look foolish for panicking.
chavala is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 10:14 am
  #320  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATL
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by chavala
OR...maybe the rest of the world will look foolish for panicking.
I will never consider someone foolish for making an effort to protect lives until more information presents itself. I fail to understand why the test should be to prove they are unsafe rather than proving that they are safe.

Yes, we don't have all the information right now. That doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with caution, especially when hundreds of lives per incident are part of the decision on how to move forward. Having two aircraft go down like this is monumentally rare, so let's treat it that way.
vkng is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 10:30 am
  #321  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 8,954
Originally Posted by chavala


OR...maybe the rest of the world will look foolish for panicking.
If BA loses a ton of orders to Airbus as a result, this will be in HBS and Wharton case studies for decades to come. They are taking the exact opposite tack that J&J did with their Tylenol fiasco.
PsiFighter37 is online now  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 10:42 am
  #322  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by username
There was a 60 Minutes report a few weeks ago about how the US FDA / drug company revolving door might have lead to the approval of opioids to use as a long term drug. I hope the FAA has more independent employees and management to make the right decisions for people's safety without external interference of any kind.
Don't hold out hope. Just as was done with most other regulatory agencies, Trump appointed an industry lobbyist to head up the group supposedly regulating the industry they're overseeing.

Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association
[5] in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an advocate for various companies.[2]

Elwell joined Airlines for America (A4A) in 2013[3] where he was the Senior Vice President for Safety, Security, and Operations. Elwell left this role in 2015.[2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Elwell
axck is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 11:03 am
  #323  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by n198ua
what if you flip the switches and the MCAS stays engaged ?
Follow your runaway trim training.
mduell is online now  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 11:26 am
  #324  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,616
If UA, WN & AA continue to fly the MAX for the next week or so, I'm guessing everyone will have their own row in economy until the panic subsides and/or facts comes out; those who choose to take the flights at least. Might end up being the best ride in coach, assuming the MAX don't get pulled from the schedules and temporarily grounded from lack of customers.

The flip side might be the majority of the country remain neutral and flights will still be full to the brim.
Yellowjj is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 11:48 am
  #325  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,178
Originally Posted by Yellowjj
I'm guessing everyone will have their own row in economy until the panic subsides and/or facts comes out
N67501:
en route from BOS to IAH: 12 empty seats in E+; 10 in E-
previous flight, IAH to BOS: 17 empty seats in E+; 3 in E-

N37502: (oddly, this is showing as a 738 on the Seat Map, but it's a MAX 9)
en route from IAH to MSY: 9 empty seats in E+; 13 in E-
previous flight, BOS to IAH: 8 empty seats in E+; 11 in E-

N27503:
en route from IAH to LAX: no empty seats
previous flight, SAL to IAH: 18 empty seats in E+; 29 in E-


N37504:
just arrived from CUN to LAX: lots of empty seats (9 in F, almost all of E+)
previous flight, LAX to CUN red-eye: full up front, about half-full in back

N47505:
en route from MCO to IAH: no empty setas
previous flight, IAH to MCO: 2 empty seats in E+, 2 in E-

You can feel free to check the other frames yourself.

To me, this doesn't look like a huge book-away factor and seems more likely to be route-specific.
jsloan is online now  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 11:49 am
  #326  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,655
Originally Posted by Yellowjj
IMight end up being the best ride in coach, assuming the MAX don't get pulled from the schedules and temporarily grounded from lack of customers.
Except for those who die.
Boraxo is online now  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 11:51 am
  #327  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe
I'm sure Boeing took the crash investigation seriously but it might not have had the same level of energy as the Ethiopian crash given the difference in reputations of the two airlines.
I hope they did not. "Reputation" is in itself an assumption that is not necessarily correct and not something from where an investigation should be started.

Originally Posted by ExplorerWannabe
There were five months between crashes -- did we have a spate of reports of instrument problems or problems with the flight control software during the interim?
Hard to know. Some end up on avherald, some are reported to a FAA/NASA database that was mentioned here some time ago, some are only reported internally in the company, some are never disclosed by the pilots. It's not because we don't know of any events, that there haven't been any. The investigators will try to find anything that points in this direction and they will include it in their report if it is relevant. They may even interview pilots that reported similar events.
mozilla is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 12:07 pm
  #328  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Where your post goes astray, IMHO, is making the subtle claim that what happened in Indonesia also happened at Addis Ababa. Sure, it appears there are some similarities but it also appears there are some key differences, too. ....
Well as of today, its the entire world's aviation specialists/regulators making the same "subtle claim" that I am making, the only exception being the FAA. As Canada's aviation minister just stated:

“My experts have looked at this and compared it to the flight that occurred with Lion Air six months ago in October, and . . . there are similarities that sort of exceed a certain threshold in our minds with respect to the possible cause of what happened in Ethi.o.pia,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.ae8d5a727cde

So its not me making assumptions, its the entire world minus Elaine Chow and the Tweeter-in-Chief's administration, which has been talking at the CEO level with Boeing....

Originally Posted by skidooman
There is a lot of optics there independently of the technical merit of the case. Perhaps we will find that indeed the two cases were related, that Boeing slept on the switch and tried to cover up a flaw so as to not to prevent sales. Or we may find out that this was overblown out of all proportions. Or something in the middle. It is simply too soon to tell. But for sure, right now, unless you are the US and have a vested interest protecting your national champion the easy call is for govt to interdict their airspace to the B737. And this interdiction will only be removed is an authority perceived as independent - not Boeing, not the FAA (whether justified or not) - says that the B737 MAX should be returned to the skies, and under which conditions.
.
+1 And I just hope - for the workers and engineers at Boeing who are not making the decisions - that Boeing's tail is not exposed here. The Ethiopian accident better have nothing whatsoever to do with the Lion Air Crash, or there will be hell to pay for both the FAA and Boeing who would have been asleep at the wheel.

Originally Posted by amtrakusa
a crsh that "looks very similar...", but is it similar? are you qualified to make that statement and start making recommendations?
No, but at this point I don't know a single reputable expert or agency OTHER THAN (1) Boeing, and (2) the FAA, which is NOT making the same assumption.

Originally Posted by PsiFighter37
Canada just grounded it. At the end of the day, the FAA and Boeing are going to look really foolish for not doing anything.
Absent indisputable iron clad proof that the accidents do not have a similar failure mode, both will have major reputational damage.

P.s. And AA, SWA, and UA, had better be really certain there is not a common failure mode, if their is, and they are the only airlines to keep flying the plane, they will take a major reputational hit as well. I can't see them having any certainty, and if I owned their stocks, I would be P.O.ed to see them winging it like they appear to be (with UA being the best of the three in allowing changes).
spin88 is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 12:10 pm
  #329  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by Boraxo
Except for those who die.
IF anyone dies. It is almost seems like many who want the FAA & Boeing to ground the rest of MAX fleet immediately would be delighted if another accident happens to this aircraft series. All in the selfish delight to validate their opinions...

I for one hope no accident ever happens again to any aircraft, not just the MAX. I trust the investigators will get to the bottom of what happened and act accordingly. In the interim I don't wish ill will on any planes, passengers, companies, federal agencies, etc.
FlyngSvyr is offline  
Old Mar 13, 2019, 12:13 pm
  #330  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston MA
Programs: UA 1K/1.5 million miler, SU Gold, JL Sapphire
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by FlyngSvyr
Which, if you have been paying attention to this thread and related news are NOT MAX aircraft. Those are the pre MAX 737's. MAX aircraft have it in the description.

Unless of course you have no confidence in ANY Boeing aircraft. In which case I wish you luck being able to access many cities in the US without setting foot on a Boeing product.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure.

Still, can these be swapped?

And no, I do not trust Boeing (or Airbus or any companies) to auto-regulate themselves. The history of auto-regulation shows it will fail at times in absence of a strong watchdog that will make them suffer if they aren't auto-regulating well. That watchdog, the FAA, says the MAX planes are OK. And I would have believed it no questions asked before. Except that right now we have an administration that doesn't believe in science on one hand, and all the other authorities (except Canada, and that may not last) that decided to ground the plane. Can't say it makes me feel good.
skidooman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.