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 26, 2019, 2:46 pm
#841
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,702
Mar 26, 2019, 3:10 pm
#842
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: ORD | LGA | 2E
Programs: UA GS 1.6MM UC | AA CK 0.7MM AC | Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist | Hertz PC
Posts: 1,054
I sat next to a major carrier pilot on the way to HNL once and when I referenced the gauge of the aircraft in referring to it he laughed at me (already knowing that I was in no way affiliated with the aviation industry). I am sure defending non -8 MAX 737s has been the majority of the increased workload for the customer service at the major carriers that fly them.
Mar 26, 2019, 3:15 pm
#843
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
The moderator transferred this post from from another thread dealing with whether United should cancel the 737mAX order & go for the A321neo. I was trying to bring home the point that cabin width for the 737 was set on a. 1950s detrrmination, thus being more narrow the the A321. Not a safety issue, but a passenger comfort issue, more related to the original posting thread. Cabin width & seat width are factors in passenger airplane preference. 737 safety. & grounding should only be discussed in the other thread in the context where it would bear on UA's decision to switch to the A321neo & possibly some A220s. Issues such as cabin width should be in the other thread. There are a lot of 737mAX issues, but keeping posts focused to the most relevent thread promotes a more focused discussion.
Mar 26, 2019, 3:38 pm
#844
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
It's irrelevant to either thread because United and all other airlines don't buy planes based on perceived comfort of economy passengers. Most economy passengers don't know the difference between an A380 and a CRJ900.
Mar 26, 2019, 4:16 pm
#845
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Southwest 737 Max Makes Energency Landing in Orlando
Appears to be an engine issue. From Orlando to Victorville
Mar 26, 2019, 4:40 pm
#846
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Haze gray and underway
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, HH Diamond, Marriott 'clink clink' Titanium
Posts: 1,784
Mar 26, 2019, 6:33 pm
#847
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,702
Mar 26, 2019, 6:53 pm
#848
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
In 1965, three newly-introduced B727-100s crashed in the US in a three-month period.
Those crashes weren't due to a flaw in the airplane. They were due to the procedures which were carried over from flying prop-driven airplanes which had instant power availability compared to the slow spool-up characteristics of a turbine engine. The proper procedure with a jet is to have the engines spooled up by 500' - 1000' before landing so that power will be available instantly if needed. Pilots transitioning from propeller-driven airplanes weren't always complying with that procedure.
Modern turbine engines additionally mitigate that threat by having higher in-flight idle settings which reduce the spool-up time from flight-idle. This also makes the newer airplanes harder to slow-down and descend quickly which does lead to some go-arounds when the pilots are brought in on a tighter approach than they were expecting.
Those crashes weren't due to a flaw in the airplane. They were due to the procedures which were carried over from flying prop-driven airplanes which had instant power availability compared to the slow spool-up characteristics of a turbine engine. The proper procedure with a jet is to have the engines spooled up by 500' - 1000' before landing so that power will be available instantly if needed. Pilots transitioning from propeller-driven airplanes weren't always complying with that procedure.
Modern turbine engines additionally mitigate that threat by having higher in-flight idle settings which reduce the spool-up time from flight-idle. This also makes the newer airplanes harder to slow-down and descend quickly which does lead to some go-arounds when the pilots are brought in on a tighter approach than they were expecting.
https://www.tmtindustryinsider.com/2016/08/air-safety-the-deadly-boeing-727/
"The reaction was swift and dramatic. Travel agencies requested the airlines to cancel 727 bookings. Some major corporations ordered their employees to avoid 727 flights. Congressional claims erupted that the design was unsafe, and demands followed that all 727s should be grounded. In response, the Civil Aeronautics Board (the CAB, which was responsible for investigating air accidents and making safety recommendations at that time) undertook a review of the 727’s airworthiness, aerodynamics and flight characteristics. It also requested the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to review the 727 design data. And the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) convened a meeting of 727 operators to review their operating procedures and training.
The result of these reviews was a conclusion that the 727 was airworthy and properly certificated. However, the CAB found that pilots were making unstabilized, high descent rate approaches more often in 727s than in any other jet transport—a practice that was facilitated by the 727’s sophisticated flap system, which allowed excessive sink rates to develop if approaches were not carefully monitored.
"
Similar public reaction although the govt didn't ground while it reviewed. Two of the accidents were UA planes.
Mar 26, 2019, 7:45 pm
#849
Suspended
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 821
Meanwhile I just read there was a recent emergency landing of a SW Max 8 or 9 recent at MCO.....
Mar 26, 2019, 8:17 pm
#850
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,412
While I have no doubt that some people will tie the two together anyway, at first blush, it looks like nothing but bad luck. An engine failure can happen on any aircraft at any time.
Mar 26, 2019, 8:23 pm
#851
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,855
Mar 26, 2019, 8:56 pm
#852
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Haze gray and underway
Programs: UA 1K 2MM, HH Diamond, Marriott 'clink clink' Titanium
Posts: 1,784
Mar 27, 2019, 6:30 am
#853
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,702
Mar 27, 2019, 6:42 am
#854
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,462
The Sun, hardly a journalistic beacon, but nevertheless a part of the media, put out a bit entitled 'JET EMERGENCY / Boeing 737 Max 8 plane identical to Ethiopian crash jet in emergency landing'.
Out of respect for intelligence, I will not link to it.
Out of respect for intelligence, I will not link to it.
Last edited by fumje; Mar 27, 2019 at 6:57 am Reason: comma
Mar 27, 2019, 7:02 am
#855
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,462
Indeed, that one is click-bait-y, but I think it's generally in line with a lot of the recent reporting's failure or inability to give proper context to the issue that caused the two crashes. So for a while, at least, minor incidents are going to be labelled as 'crash-y 737 stuff' even when they're entirely unrelated.
