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 23, 2019, 6:56 pm
#766
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,673
How many times has United, with a 737 fleet ten times the size, run it off the runway leading to a writeoff and hospitalization in the last decade?
They don't have to kill everyone on board every time to show that they're not an example of a good operator.
Is it really any different if they've merely killed everyone on board only 7% of their 737 fleet in the last decade?
They don't have to kill everyone on board every time to show that they're not an example of a good operator.
Is it really any different if they've merely killed everyone on board only 7% of their 737 fleet in the last decade?
Mar 23, 2019, 7:20 pm
#767
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
Redundant systems with verification is neither cheap nor easy. An AoA disagree indicator is an option on the MAX; CNBC said it's $80k.
Aircraft have redundant systems where it makes sense to take on the complexity and cost to design and build them right and certify them.
Are your HA data systems certified? Does it cost $80k to put a disagree light on them?
Plenty of things could be done to improve the safety of air transportation, but there's a cost (and schedule) tradeoff for every one of them. It doesn't make sense to gold plate every system on the plane in case the crew throws their training out the window.
Aircraft have redundant systems where it makes sense to take on the complexity and cost to design and build them right and certify them.
Are your HA data systems certified? Does it cost $80k to put a disagree light on them?
Plenty of things could be done to improve the safety of air transportation, but there's a cost (and schedule) tradeoff for every one of them. It doesn't make sense to gold plate every system on the plane in case the crew throws their training out the window.
I’m not suggesting a recovery system by any means; I agree that’s excessive in many cases. But on inputs that have redundancy, there could very easily be a system to scrub through them at some frequency and if sensor A and B have disagreeing output, outside of tolerance, it could just post a warning to the display.
“Pitot disagree - check output”
”Airspeed disagree - check output”
Just something - not in critical path - to bring attention to sensors that should agree, but don’t.
It’s easy enough to do if the sensors already exist.
Mar 23, 2019, 7:36 pm
#769
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,673
Mar 23, 2019, 8:41 pm
#771
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,673
When it interferes with the ANC mantra of the pilots: Aviate, navigate, communicate.
If you're just completing takeoff, you're 800 feet above the ground, and the nose suddenly pitches down unexpectedly because the damn engines are too far forward and Boeing decided a computer would have to handle the COG issue...that's too complex IMO.
Nope, not a pilot. Just a lowly passenger. Luckily, a still-alive one.
If you're just completing takeoff, you're 800 feet above the ground, and the nose suddenly pitches down unexpectedly because the damn engines are too far forward and Boeing decided a computer would have to handle the COG issue...that's too complex IMO.
Nope, not a pilot. Just a lowly passenger. Luckily, a still-alive one.
Mar 23, 2019, 9:07 pm
#772
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: UA LT 1K, AA EXP, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,658
I think the MAX's fate will be determined by the foreign carriers that have them on order. After most of the foreign carriers grounded their MAX's then the USA did. If most of the foreign carriers were to cancel their orders, then there would be pressure on US airlines to cancel.
Some analysis have said the MAX is too big to be cancelled. By does it make sense to build 4,000 of these for use over the next 45 years. I agree with others, in today's time - a flawed design should not have happened. If Boeing knew it was flawed and then proceeded to continue with it - then that is an issue.
I just don't see 4,000 of these being built. More carriers will cancel. US airlines may stick with it, but Boeing will be forced to replace it with a new design over the next 5 years.
Some analysis have said the MAX is too big to be cancelled. By does it make sense to build 4,000 of these for use over the next 45 years. I agree with others, in today's time - a flawed design should not have happened. If Boeing knew it was flawed and then proceeded to continue with it - then that is an issue.
I just don't see 4,000 of these being built. More carriers will cancel. US airlines may stick with it, but Boeing will be forced to replace it with a new design over the next 5 years.
Mar 23, 2019, 9:41 pm
#773
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I think the MAX's fate will be determined by the foreign carriers that have them on order. After most of the foreign carriers grounded their MAX's then the USA did. If most of the foreign carriers were to cancel their orders, then there would be pressure on US airlines to cancel.
Some analysis have said the MAX is too big to be cancelled. By does it make sense to build 4,000 of these for use over the next 45 years. I agree with others, in today's time - a flawed design should not have happened. If Boeing knew it was flawed and then proceeded to continue with it - then that is an issue.
I just don't see 4,000 of these being built. More carriers will cancel. US airlines may stick with it, but Boeing will be forced to replace it with a new design over the next 5 years.
Some analysis have said the MAX is too big to be cancelled. By does it make sense to build 4,000 of these for use over the next 45 years. I agree with others, in today's time - a flawed design should not have happened. If Boeing knew it was flawed and then proceeded to continue with it - then that is an issue.
I just don't see 4,000 of these being built. More carriers will cancel. US airlines may stick with it, but Boeing will be forced to replace it with a new design over the next 5 years.
The business case for the MAX - pilots not needing training on a new type, and substantial parts commonality, but with 15% higher fuel burn, exists regardless of the fact that the A/C is a dog. SWA or RyanAir are not going to add a second/new airbus type to their fleet.
I think Boeing will lose a few orders, and perhaps will lose a few new orders they otherwise might have gotten to the neo (or the new C series jets) but overall the business case does not change. Boeing will (a) change the software, (b) tie it to the second AoA sensor, and have an indication to the pilot if they disagree, and (c) will provide more training, problem solved.
I think the only real impact we see may be on the MAX10. It has further risks with its telescoping landing gear, and is not so hot of a plane to start with. If there are cancellations, that is where I would expect to see them.
Mar 23, 2019, 9:44 pm
#774
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,427
There IS a way to deal with MCAS @:-) More than one pilot posted about that.
LiOn battery catching on fire? Not so much @:-)
Luckily this did not happen in flight. Lucky on oh so many fronts .....
Mar 23, 2019, 10:15 pm
#775
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,673
The 737MAX DID kill 350 people before it was grounded and (possibly) fixed.
And when it returns to the air (hopefully with proper training, including purpose-built simulators, if not outright different type certification), I'll wait a year or so to ensure that no one else augers into the ground. <shrugs>
Mar 23, 2019, 11:21 pm
#776
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
Did you actually mean "lower fuel burn"?
Mar 24, 2019, 7:32 am
#777
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
The ET crash in Beirut was also a pathetic job of flying a plane, and then to have the Ethiopian authorities completely disregard all evidence in an effort to protect ET’s brand makes me wonder why everyone is after Boeing and the FAA, when clearly the operators in both crashes have shown an inclination towards poor operational standards.
Way, way more than $80k to make sure those systems are data integral. Built plenty of multi-million dollar HA (not even fault tolerant) systems in my time ... Protecting the data (something’s wrong here, I’m not going to write any suspect data) is a much different problem to solve than trying to recover from the fault. I can almost guarantee you've used one or more of the systems I've built (without knowing it of course) - can't get into details about what or why, but it's not governmental... but certified, yes. I've had to sign off to people who care about such things on the level of redundancy and integrity in the design.
I’m not suggesting a recovery system by any means; I agree that’s excessive in many cases. But on inputs that have redundancy, there could very easily be a system to scrub through them at some frequency and if sensor A and B have disagreeing output, outside of tolerance, it could just post a warning to the display.
“Pitot disagree - check output”
”Airspeed disagree - check output”
Just something - not in critical path - to bring attention to sensors that should agree, but don’t.
It’s easy enough to do if the sensors already exist.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 24, 2019 at 5:04 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
Mar 24, 2019, 8:31 am
#778
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: UA GS ,QF Plat
Posts: 686
That's an extreme overreaction and wholly unnecessary.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
Mar 24, 2019, 8:52 am
#779
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
If the people running an airline are too stupid or too cheap to buy systems appropriate for the experience and training of their pilots, why should this be blamed on Boeing? It's not Boeing's responsibility to protect them from their own bad choices. It's not like they're selling aircraft directly to hobby pilots who wouldn't be expected to know anything about the systems. More choice should be better.
Mar 24, 2019, 10:47 am
#780
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Programs: DL DM & 5MM, WN
Posts: 1,451
A long article, but some useful (prescient?) thoughts with a more general view about aircraft automation, control damping and how pilots react to (rarely) encountered problems nowadays.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ash?verso=true
(My apologies if it is linked here, but I didn't see it in a quick search.)
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ash?verso=true
(My apologies if it is linked here, but I didn't see it in a quick search.)