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
#946
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,412
Airlines sell older aircraft because they lack amenities, are fuel inefficient, or because they require too much upkeep, not because they become less safe with age.
#947
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: LH M&M, BA EC, DL SM
Posts: 5,731
Additionally, these old frames were/are often flown in very different environments. Just look at the crashes of the 727: early on, most crashes were by American airlines (mostly teething issues); this later shifted to older frames in developing territories.
#948
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
Every couple of years?!?
1989 - Incorrect rudder trim for takeoff caused abort and the aircraft overshot the runway, going into the water.
1991 - Aircraft cleared to land on a runway that had another aircraft waiting to takeoff, resulting in collision.
1994 - Aircraft lost control on approach at 6000 ft.
None of the other crashes listed at US Airways plane crashes involved 737s and 2 of the 3 above were definitely ascribed to human error.
Boeing 737 plane crashes lists 79 "significant events" (not all of which were crashes) for all models of the 737 from 1972 to ET. The vast majority involved Third World or second- (third-?) rate airlines.
Perhaps there's a better database for me to pull from?
1989 - Incorrect rudder trim for takeoff caused abort and the aircraft overshot the runway, going into the water.
1991 - Aircraft cleared to land on a runway that had another aircraft waiting to takeoff, resulting in collision.
1994 - Aircraft lost control on approach at 6000 ft.
None of the other crashes listed at US Airways plane crashes involved 737s and 2 of the 3 above were definitely ascribed to human error.
Boeing 737 plane crashes lists 79 "significant events" (not all of which were crashes) for all models of the 737 from 1972 to ET. The vast majority involved Third World or second- (third-?) rate airlines.
Perhaps there's a better database for me to pull from?
The point is that the airline in this case is irrelevant. The aircraft itself was rushed into service because Boeing fell far behind its primary competitor, the aircraft is flawed and needs to be updated.
#949
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,702
I want my passenger jets to fly like steady, drama-free boats in the sky. I don't want to think that my pilots have to compensate every two seconds to keep the damn thing in the air.
I might never set foot on a MAX again.
#950
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Francisco
Programs: All-Around Kettle
Posts: 3,289
It tells me that the design is inherently flawed. The root cause of all of this is the movement of the engine nacelles so far forward. In my mind, it's the same result as if they had shaved the wing length to save weight or something, and then added software in an attempt to compensate.
I want my passenger jets to fly like steady, drama-free boats in the sky. I don't want to think that my pilots have to compensate every two seconds to keep the damn thing in the air.
I might never set foot on a MAX again.
I want my passenger jets to fly like steady, drama-free boats in the sky. I don't want to think that my pilots have to compensate every two seconds to keep the damn thing in the air.
I might never set foot on a MAX again.
#951
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: DAY/CMH
Programs: UA MileagePlus
Posts: 2,474
I'm thinking that when the MAX returns to the sky, I'll choose it over any other plane. Not only will it be the most carefully-scrutinized aircraft in years; nervous fellow flyers' looking elsewhere will make the MAX comfortably uncrowded. Of course, if that situation lasts more than a few months, airlines will have to quit operating them; if the nervousness abates and people quit avoiding them, they'll be just as full as any other jet. So the benefit won't last long either way.
#952
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: 100,413
I'm thinking that when the MAX returns to the sky, I'll choose it over any other plane. Not only will it be the most carefully-scrutinized aircraft in years; nervous fellow flyers' looking elsewhere will make the MAX comfortably uncrowded. Of course, if that situation lasts more than a few months, airlines will have to quit operating them; if the nervousness abates and people quit avoiding them, they'll be just as full as any other jet. So the benefit won't last long either way.
Personally, I'd fly them even now on major first world airlines, and I try to stay away from third world airlines and LCCs regardless of aircraft type.
#953
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,195
Yes, every couple of years. That's three accidents over a six year period which averages out to be one every two years. And it's noteworthy that those three crashes occurred in a shorter timespan than the aforementioned Ethiopian Airlines crashes.
The point is that the airline in this case is irrelevant. The aircraft itself was rushed into service because Boeing fell far behind its primary competitor, the aircraft is flawed and needs to be updated.
The point is that the airline in this case is irrelevant. The aircraft itself was rushed into service because Boeing fell far behind its primary competitor, the aircraft is flawed and needs to be updated.
The FO had 350 flight hours. That may not have had anything to do with the crash but it wouldn't occur at a major US
There's still a question about runaway stabilizer prcoedures as well as why MCAS was activated in a situation where it shouldn't have been. Experienced pilots seem to disagree about how overwhelmed the cabin crew were or should have been at the time. The fact a jumpseated pilot saved the very same plane just the day before by getting the flight crew to perform the proper procedure speaks volumes. If it was an issue for that crew to remember, why wasn't the next crew alerted to it? How big a variation in procedure is it from the decades-old procedures for runaway stabilizers? Again, the airline is NOT irrelevant because their standards for flight crew proficiency are relevant (until/unless we get information that shows the electronics overriding pilot inputs in a way that couldn't be negated by the 2 known cut-off switches).
Last edited by ExplorerWannabe; Apr 2, 2019 at 10:51 am Reason: Correction
#954
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The MAX checklist has added additional information to the end of runaway stabilizer procedure about MCAS in accordance with the airworthiness directive. This is something that you'd read while studying the emergency and non-normal procedures or AFTER you've disabled the electric trim system following a runaway. The procedure to stop the runaway has not changed.
#956
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
This is patently untrue. Every major European airline has pilots flying with these levels of experience. The Germanwings FO who crashed his airplane back in 2015 had 630 hours, for example, and he had already flown almost 500 hours as an FO.
It is completely normal in Europe (and everywhere else in the world outside the US/Canada) for FOs start flying on the line at 150-200 hours of total experience. Of note, this experience is not really comparable to the Part 61 instruction that most US pilots get for their first hundreds of hours - foreign airlines put their pilot cadets through rigorous training programs including a lot of sim time designed to prepare the cadet for professional flying.
#957
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
No, that was 3 incidents over 11 years because my search went through the 1990s. Your statement made it sound like USAir was having 737 crashes every couple of years throughout the 1990s. And as I pointed out, 2 of the 3 were definitely attrbutable to human error -- NOT problems with the 737. I'm sure there are flaws in the MAX but some of the accusations about the 737 being inherently flawed (despite being one of the most flown airframes in aviation history) ignore the actual flight history and the overwhelming predominance of incidents occurring in Third World or cut-rate airlines. The pure statistics show the airline is NOT irrelevant. I didn't do a specific count but IIIRC, out of the small remainder occurring at US or European major airlines, a sizable portion were attributed to human error.
There's still a question about runaway stabilizer prcoedures as well as why MCAS was activated in a situation where it shouldn't have been. Experienced pilots seem to disagree about how overwhelmed the cabin crew were or should have been at the time. The fact a jumpseated pilot saved the very same plane just the day before by getting the flight crew to perform the proper procedure speaks volumes. If it was an issue for that crew to remember, why wasn't the next crew alerted to it? How big a variation in procedure is it from the decades-old procedures for runaway stabilizers? Again, the airline is NOT irrelevant because their standards for flight crew proficiency are relevant (until/unless we get information that shows the electronics overriding pilot inputs in a way that couldn't be negated by the 2 known cut-off switches).
#958
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
MIT Expert Highlights "Divergent Condition" Caused By 737 MAX Engine Placement
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco.../#360b931d40aa
I would feel more comfortable if the pilots got a lot of training on flying the 737 MAX without stability automation / augmentation so they got the actual feeling of flying a 737 with new larger engines moved forward.
I would feel more comfortable if the pilots got a lot of training on flying the 737 MAX without stability automation / augmentation so they got the actual feeling of flying a 737 with new larger engines moved forward.
#959
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NRT / HND
Programs: AA EXP, NH Plat, Former UA 1K
Posts: 5,665
Well in fairness it may not always be irrelevant, but frequently would be. Many human error crashes have absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft type, the 1991 USAir crash at LAX referenced earlier in the thread is a great example. That plane would have crashed and burned if it was an A320, MD80, 757, etc, it hit another plane on the runway that shouldn't have been there. Another perfect example is the SQ crash in 2000, the captain turned onto the wrong runway with construction equipment parked on it and attempted takeoff. It didn't matter that he was piloting a 747, the result would have been the same in a DC-10 or A340. There are loads of similar crashes that by and large shouldn't be included when debating if an aircraft type is safe or not.
#960
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,702
I think all we have heard (in the flying public) is that in a near-stall condition (which is itself a condition that practically no airliner will ever get into), constant control pressure on the yoke would have resulted in increased pitch-up attitude. We want to avoid that, hence the need for MCAS, to avoid pitching up at constant control pressure. That says nothing to me about the plane's aerodynamic stability.
Why would the cabin crew have been overwhelmed at all at this point, and even so, what would that have to do with the accident at all? The Lion Air plane was saved the day before by a deadheading pilot, not the Ethiopian plane. And even if this situation was recoverable, it's clear that Boeing really rushed this thing into the air. The whole situation even being allowed to happen the way it did in today's aviation world brings to light a major failure in the system. These are the kinds of oversights and rush-jobs that used to happen decades ago. I would have hoped a major company with the market share of Boeing could have had better judgement than it seems they really did. Truly shameful.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 2, 2019 at 6:22 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member