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 18, 2019, 1:08 pm
#556
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Boeing fundamentally changed with the McDonald-Douglas "merger" which was infact a stealth take-over of Boeing by the McDonald-Douglas management. They became much more focused on trying to get higher profit margins by milking existing programs, not doing cutting edge design, and also far more adept at working the refs and lobbying. I think you see both changes leading to where they are today. They did not do the investments they needed to, did a new design on the cheap, and then tried to use (or used) political pull to get the plane certified, and for a while hold off regulatory action. The Boeing's CEO was calling the President directly says about all you need to know.
Mar 18, 2019, 1:14 pm
#557
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
You are correct, there are (or so has been reported, I have no first hand knowledge) two AoA sensors, but only the one on the nose was tied to the MCAS system. My guess is that Boeing is going to tie in the second one, and not add in a third one. Note again that Airbus had issue with the AoA sensors icing on the A320 (most recently on an LH plane that had issues going from Spain to MUC in 2015) and made changes in both the sensors and the software. So the problem was easy to anticipate. the difference was that on the LH flight (on an A321) the plane was at 30K feet when the problem occurred, so the pilots had space to recover.
Mar 18, 2019, 1:18 pm
#558
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Haze gray and underway
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, HH Diamond, Marriott 'clink clink' Titanium
Posts: 1,784
It has been reported that the second sensor is an option and that both Lion air and Ethiopian did not pick up.
Mar 18, 2019, 1:29 pm
#560
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
You beat me to it. Boeing asked for more $$$ for the indicator. I saw that Lion Air did not order it, but have not seen anything re Ethiopian.
Mar 18, 2019, 2:44 pm
#562
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,218
Profits vs lives.
However, in this case I personally put the onus on Boeing. If it is necessary it should not be an option. In both cases on this new plane it sounds as though it should have been mandatory and not a nice to have option.
Mar 18, 2019, 2:50 pm
#563
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,200
An option...does not sound like a must have.
Profits vs lives.
However, in this case I personally put the onus on Boeing. If it is necessary it should not be an option. In both cases on this new plane it sounds as though it should have been mandatory and not a nice to have option.
Profits vs lives.
However, in this case I personally put the onus on Boeing. If it is necessary it should not be an option. In both cases on this new plane it sounds as though it should have been mandatory and not a nice to have option.
Who in their right mind would forgo an airbag when it appears to be such a critical safety requirement?
Mar 18, 2019, 3:17 pm
#564
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DSM, BKK or anywhere with an airport
Programs: UA 2P, HH Gold
Posts: 1,018
I don't understand then - how have two planes flown themselves into the ground ? Certainly the pilots are trying - in vain - to pull the nose up with all they've got ? I can only speak for myself, but I'm imagining fight-for-life scenario in the cockpit with the flying pilots desperately trying to fly a plane intent on flying itself into the Earth ?
Mar 18, 2019, 3:21 pm
#565
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,763
Analogous to GM asking me if I want an airbag in my car - and if I do, which common sense dictates I should, I need to pay an additional line item charge. (Let's disregard that airbags are mandatory, it's just an example).
Who in their right mind would forgo an airbag when it appears to be such a critical safety requirement?
Who in their right mind would forgo an airbag when it appears to be such a critical safety requirement?
Mar 18, 2019, 3:32 pm
#566
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,450
Quite simply, the fight would not have been in vain if the pilots executed a procedure for which they had been trained.
The question, of course, is why were the pilots even in the position where their (correct) affirmative response was the only thing standing between survival and disaster? As we have maintained throughout this excellent thread, is that the two crashes appear to be the combination of a poorly-designed system that inexplicably did not incorporate the redundancy and fail-safe features of other, similar flight control augmentation systems, plus the final link in the causal chain... improper crew management of an emergency situation. Unfortunately, human factors always play a role.
Boeing has a major problem in that it appears to have designed a system that creates a dynamic situation where a crew's options dwindle much too quickly in the event of a single point of failure. That's not acceptable.
The question, of course, is why were the pilots even in the position where their (correct) affirmative response was the only thing standing between survival and disaster? As we have maintained throughout this excellent thread, is that the two crashes appear to be the combination of a poorly-designed system that inexplicably did not incorporate the redundancy and fail-safe features of other, similar flight control augmentation systems, plus the final link in the causal chain... improper crew management of an emergency situation. Unfortunately, human factors always play a role.
Boeing has a major problem in that it appears to have designed a system that creates a dynamic situation where a crew's options dwindle much too quickly in the event of a single point of failure. That's not acceptable.
Mar 18, 2019, 3:39 pm
#567
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
An option...does not sound like a must have.
Profits vs lives.
However, in this case I personally put the onus on Boeing. If it is necessary it should not be an option. In both cases on this new plane it sounds as though it should have been mandatory and not a nice to have option.
Profits vs lives.
However, in this case I personally put the onus on Boeing. If it is necessary it should not be an option. In both cases on this new plane it sounds as though it should have been mandatory and not a nice to have option.
Mar 18, 2019, 3:52 pm
#568
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,194
Analogous to GM asking me if I want an airbag in my car - and if I do, which common sense dictates I should, I need to pay an additional line item charge. (Let's disregard that airbags are mandatory, it's just an example).
Who in their right mind would forgo an airbag when it appears to be such a critical safety requirement?
Who in their right mind would forgo an airbag when it appears to be such a critical safety requirement?
Sorry, I know you were striving for a particular point but there are no panaceas, including airbags. Corollary questions which people should be asking:
- Under what conditions might MCAS or any other part of Boeing's (or Airbus's) design override or preempt the pilot's control of the aircraft?
- Did those particular conditions prevail during the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes?
- Was there a procedure available to reestablish pilot control of the aircraft?
- If so, were the pilots in question aware of this procedure?
- If not, why not?
- Is this procedure available to current pilots of these aircraft?
- How often do the conditions outlined in question 2 occur?
I haven't kept up with the machinations at each company and I'm not an aviation engineer so question for those who do or are: is it still true that Boeing generally builds aircraft where the avionics are designed to help the pilot while Airbus generally builds aircraft where the pilot is intended to help the avionics? If the allegations are true, it would seem the software design for the MAX adopted the Airbus philosophy over the traditional Boeing philosophy. That fundamental difference in design philosophy has led me to prefer Boeing over Airbus flights for quite a while, to heck with which aircraft has more modern IFE or seats or whatever.
Mar 18, 2019, 4:01 pm
#569
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
That will be answered by the two accident investigations.
I have a lot of layovers in Central America. Often, our hotel transportation is a van that I've seen in many countries but never in the US. It has only lap belts in the passenger seats. Shoulder harnesses are only on the front two seats. It also has very little structure in front of the driver for a crumple zone; somewhat like the old VW microbus. Certainly "less safe" than what we have in the US but is it "unsafe"?
All 737s that I've ever seen have had two AoA vanes. Both on the nose; one on the left and one on the right. That data is used by the air-data computers. Some have AoA indicators on the primary flight display. Others don't. We don't have any procedures which utilize the AoA display. It, when installed, is just additional information.
All 737s that I've ever seen have had two AoA vanes. Both on the nose; one on the left and one on the right. That data is used by the air-data computers. Some have AoA indicators on the primary flight display. Others don't. We don't have any procedures which utilize the AoA display. It, when installed, is just additional information.
Mar 18, 2019, 11:01 pm
#570
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Seoul/Honolulu
Programs: HA KE OZ UA AA DL
Posts: 72
Seems to me that Boeing and at least some at FAA were criminally negligent with design/certification of the 737 MAX - resulting in hundreds of people dead. It's bloody murder.