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
#421
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
The why will eventually be investigated and discovered, however again, what benefit is there to safety to keep the aircraft flying until that occurs? US airlines and regulators love to tout that safety is their #1 priority so that being the case, why are we last to uphold that claim when the proverbial * hits the fan? We aren't talking about a crippling number of aircraft here.
Ultimately, the grounding may be the easiest path forward for Boeing as well. While it will cause a lot of short term pain, I think that without a clearly enumerated stop and return to service, the cloud would remain over the MAX for a long time. The FAA eventually allowing the 737 MAX to return to service is a signal that Boeing and the airlines can point to which indicates that the plane is now safe for the flying public, even if ultimately the fix at that time is just updating flight manuals and giving pilots an hour or two of sim time.
My issue with the MAX is in the systems architecture, where one change can essentially eliminate the possibility of the same set of circumstances that caused the Lion Air crash. That's the fix Boeing has been working on and targeting an April software rollout. I'm sure ET will introduce new wrinkles that may or may not require additional fixes, but if it's attributable to the same issue, where were the calls to ground the type in November when this data first came to light?
In addition, it can be deactivated by deploying flaps or engaging the autopilot. Nothing novel here. The manual revisions reinforce this and also provide information about the MCAS architecture, but at the end of the day, the MCAS failure presents no differently than a runaway stab trim scenario and pilots are trained to respond correctly. If they don't, bad things happen.
The media, probably out of ignorance, has portrayed this as some sort of all-new procedure developed in light of the Lion Air crash. It's not.
Last edited by EWR764; Mar 13, 2019 at 3:17 pm
#422
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,000
1723 SFO-OGG 739MAX just got a swap to a 772. Score for the 20 in F and 8 more on the waitlist.
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Last edited by IAH-OIL-TRASH; Mar 13, 2019 at 3:21 pm
#423
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
1723 SFO-OGG 739MAX just got a swap to a 772. Score for the 20 in F and 8 more on the waitlist.
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
#424
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,000
#425
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA Silver, Bonvoy Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 21,530
1723 SFO-OGG 739MAX just got a swap to a 772. Score for the 20 in F and 8 more on the waitlist.
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
(Upon further review, it appears UA723 is actually being swapped for a 739. They just haven't changed the seatmap yet.)
#426
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,648
1723 SFO-OGG 739MAX just got a swap to a 772. Score for the 20 in F and 8 more on the waitlist.
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
#427
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA MM Plat, UA 1MM, Hilton Lifetime Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold, CLEAR, AS MVP Gold
Posts: 3,614
I guess I won't be effected on my flight into EGE on the Devil's Chariot. Right now the 739MAX looks pretty good. :-)
#428
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,000
#429
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Small town near RNO
Programs: Delta 1MM/PM, BAEC GGL, Asiana Diamond Plus(Lifetime), AC *Tangerine
Posts: 897
It looks like there's a lot of issues going on with this. I'm coming from this as a senior officer in another DOT regulated industry (Maritime)
On the FAA, DOT, and Political Class, the same basic initial response would have been the same whether the President was 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 or 45, the political people just don't get involved right away (911 being a significant exception). All of the later issues sure look to be more of the standard bunglecratic CYA since this will probably have several trails of pointing fingers leading back to the bowels of the agency, including everybody including the technocrats, administrators, and legal beagles..I just got to where I can catch up but it looks like the FAA needed a nudge from the President this time on to get off the pot.
I've seen a lot of things with all of the regulatory demands that often conflict with each other and the fact that there is a lot of politics involved in the process of writing and enforcing things. We've been trying for years in the maritime to get things simplified but rather than looking to see what is happening in the real world it's easier to just issue a new regulation than to clean up the mess.
Given the demand for all of the newest bells and whistles along with the cost/pollution/crew reduction pressures on the airlines, to go along with the regulatory demands things get a lot more complicated. Just looking at my car and my ship along with what I see on FT from the pilots on various issues, there a lot of things that can't be bypassed, overridden, etc. in a timely/ effective manner because of the regulatory restrictions, many of which don't address real life issues( AKA one that will happen less that once in a century),. At least we can usually find a way to jury rig something to get back but given the lack of access to almost everything on a plane that isn't even practical now.
This doesn't excuse anything that my have been a design or operator error, but we do need to look at the big picture on the Big Picture. I remember having a rather animated discussion with a bunch of Greenies who were telling me that I should never, ever discharge any oil overboard even if it meant sinking a tanker full of heavy fuel oil (think black snot) and unfortunately that's where the world has come to. For the record I don't believe that making a mess like that is ever a good idea just because someone is too lazy to deal with things properly.
I'm just hoping that this whole mess gets settled out within a reasonable time and with a real, permanent solution.
On the FAA, DOT, and Political Class, the same basic initial response would have been the same whether the President was 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 or 45, the political people just don't get involved right away (911 being a significant exception). All of the later issues sure look to be more of the standard bunglecratic CYA since this will probably have several trails of pointing fingers leading back to the bowels of the agency, including everybody including the technocrats, administrators, and legal beagles..I just got to where I can catch up but it looks like the FAA needed a nudge from the President this time on to get off the pot.
I've seen a lot of things with all of the regulatory demands that often conflict with each other and the fact that there is a lot of politics involved in the process of writing and enforcing things. We've been trying for years in the maritime to get things simplified but rather than looking to see what is happening in the real world it's easier to just issue a new regulation than to clean up the mess.
Given the demand for all of the newest bells and whistles along with the cost/pollution/crew reduction pressures on the airlines, to go along with the regulatory demands things get a lot more complicated. Just looking at my car and my ship along with what I see on FT from the pilots on various issues, there a lot of things that can't be bypassed, overridden, etc. in a timely/ effective manner because of the regulatory restrictions, many of which don't address real life issues( AKA one that will happen less that once in a century),. At least we can usually find a way to jury rig something to get back but given the lack of access to almost everything on a plane that isn't even practical now.
This doesn't excuse anything that my have been a design or operator error, but we do need to look at the big picture on the Big Picture. I remember having a rather animated discussion with a bunch of Greenies who were telling me that I should never, ever discharge any oil overboard even if it meant sinking a tanker full of heavy fuel oil (think black snot) and unfortunately that's where the world has come to. For the record I don't believe that making a mess like that is ever a good idea just because someone is too lazy to deal with things properly.
I'm just hoping that this whole mess gets settled out within a reasonable time and with a real, permanent solution.
#430
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,189
News says it is only the MAX8 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.b2143e1441a9 and they highlight how the Canadian action also covers the Max-9.
Do we know the actual scope of [Moderator edit: the] Order?
If only the -8, I would hope UA would have the common sense to ground their -9s as well, get at least a little bit of what they have lost in perceptions about putting safety over $$$ back...
Do we know the actual scope of [Moderator edit: the] Order?
If only the -8, I would hope UA would have the common sense to ground their -9s as well, get at least a little bit of what they have lost in perceptions about putting safety over $$$ back...
#431
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
1723 SFO-OGG 739MAX just got a swap to a 772. Score for the 20 in F and 8 more on the waitlist.
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
Edit: just thinking about the return pilots. Unlike the FAs, who often work the return flights, the pilots overnight on Maui. Would the return pilots fly out on 1723 (presumably leaving only 6 seats for waitlisters)?
#433
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'm not arguing against grounding the airplane... I suppose I'm more process-oriented, so my biggest concern is if public outcry starts to become influential in the investigative process. Do we ground a fleet following any crash in which conclusions can't be immediately drawn? Do we limit it to types that have had other crashes within a given period? Same phase of flight? Same airline? Same severity? Or only when the in-service fleet is relatively small? We can't rewrite the rules for every single crash. Correlation is not causation, and it is essential to consistently apply procedures in order to ensure the integrity of the process.
It would be great to be able to apply blanket rules to every accident scenario, however that isn't realistic because by nature, there are so many factors affecting a decision like this.
#434
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
But in the end, it's too early to make judgment calls based on experience (or complexity for that matter), for the reason that we don't know yet if it was a factor. With the majority of the current 355 B38M delivered to customers outside of the US (including the launch customer), the reason for the lack of a domestic incident could simply be probability as well. Let's await the results of the investigation.
#435
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,000
Wow. If seat map correct, it went out w/ 24 unoccupied Polaris seats. From a 738 F seat to the new Polaris seat - those passengers (plus everyone who was on waitlist) are going to be disappointed from now on when they fly to Hawaii. The F passenger flying to SFO later this evening on the plane are also getting an upgrade. If I was on the late OGG-SFO flight I'd be scrambling to do a SDC to the 77W.