Old Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
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.

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
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
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
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



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.




Print Wikipost

B737MAX Recertification - Archive

Old Apr 17, 2019, 9:24 pm
  #1171  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,628
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
What? Tell me you really think UA won't have MAX9 simulator training for their 737 pilots.
Sure hope they will, but they haven't stepped forward to say so yet.
DenverBrian is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2019, 9:53 pm
  #1172  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Canada will be requiring simulator training. So US carriers without simulator training may have issues flying the MAX to Canada. A lot of the general public will have some reluctance when booking on MAX carriers, especially those without simulator training. It will be a lot of fodder to feed the 24 hour news cycle. The news media just loves the 737MAX. It is a gift that keeps on giving more news.

A lot of countries may require simulator training.
BF263533 is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2019, 10:25 pm
  #1173  
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: 14,413
Originally Posted by BF263533
.....

The news media just loves the 737MAX. It is a gift that keeps on giving more news.

.......
At the risk of going OMNI .....

er, nevermind.

The MAX may or may not pop up in the news, but there will always be something else driving the news cycle.

There will be a handful that will book away from MAX, but this will be (to use a phrase) a nothing burger soon @:-)

And yes, 300 plus people are still dead, alas ...... I'll skip another OMNI type rant.
EmailKid is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2019, 11:28 am
  #1174  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
Its clear the FAA has lost much if not all credibility with the Max and now each country will feel empowered to decide for themselves, actually for those countries with agenda's it's in their selfish promotion to require and demand more strict, the stricter the more they stand out, not a pretty situation for either the FAA or Boeing, pretty much screwed if they take the high ground and screwed if they take the "right" ground as some one out there will demand more, after all the plane falls out of the sky, got a lot of reason to take a stronger stance now and how can the "middle" or "right" ground be defended by FAA or BA at this point when they pretty much could be accused of taking a path that led to the death of so many
chipmaster is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2019, 1:12 pm
  #1175  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by chipmaster
Its clear the FAA has lost much if not all credibility with the Max and now each country will feel empowered to decide for themselves, actually for those countries with agenda's it's in their selfish promotion to require and demand more strict, the stricter the more they stand out, not a pretty situation for either the FAA or Boeing, pretty much screwed if they take the high ground and screwed if they take the "right" ground as some one out there will demand more, after all the plane falls out of the sky, got a lot of reason to take a stronger stance now and how can the "middle" or "right" ground be defended by FAA or BA at this point when they pretty much could be accused of taking a path that led to the death of so many
Aside from maybe some podunk countries who don't build aircraft making some bluster, I don't think anything substantial is going to happen here.

Other than EASA, no other regulator is even in the same league for being able to evaluate aircraft certification. And neither they, nor the next most capable countries, are going to do anything to upset their reciprocity agreements.
mduell is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2019, 2:41 pm
  #1176  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Carolina
Programs: UA LT Gold, American Kettle, Hertz #1 Presidents Circle, Marriott LT Platinum
Posts: 927
Originally Posted by EmailKid
There will be a handful that will book away from MAX, but this will be (to use a phrase) a nothing burger soon @:-)
And while you can initially book away from the MAX, unless your going to book away from any 737 flight, you'll always be subject to an equipment swap.
drowelf is offline  
Old Apr 19, 2019, 8:04 am
  #1177  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AA EXP, HH Diamond, MR Gold, Avis PC, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,251
Originally Posted by mduell
Aside from maybe some podunk countries who don't build aircraft making some bluster, I don't think anything substantial is going to happen here.

Other than EASA, no other regulator is even in the same league for being able to evaluate aircraft certification. And neither they, nor the next most capable countries, are going to do anything to upset their reciprocity agreements.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-can...ts-11555579802

"Aviation regulators in Canada, Europe, China and Brazil previously indicated they would conduct their own safety reviews of the software fix to the automated flight-control systemknown as MCASinstead of accepting the FAAs analysis and decision to require only interactive and self-instructional training on laptops or other electronic devices."
...
"The situation marks a sharp departure from tradition. For decades, major safety decisions by the FAA affecting American-built aircraft were routinely embraced by foreign counterparts. Trust and cooperation have frayed following the second of the two recent 737 MAX crashes."
coolbeans202 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 2019, 8:47 am
  #1178  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,628
Originally Posted by drowelf
And while you can initially book away from the MAX, unless your going to book away from any 737 flight, you'll always be subject to an equipment swap.
Or you fly Delta. @:-)
DenverBrian is offline  
Old Apr 19, 2019, 9:20 am
  #1179  
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
Originally Posted by drowelf
And while you can initially book away from the MAX, unless your going to book away from any 737 flight, you'll always be subject to an equipment swap.
To be honest I've always booked away from 737s where possible on any airline. They're cramped, noisy, poorly configured, and about the worst narrowbody experience for the passenger that exists outside of small regional jets. The MAX just takes this to another level wherein it's actually dangerous.
cmd320 is offline  
Old Apr 19, 2019, 9:29 am
  #1180  
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: 14,413
Originally Posted by cmd320

To be honest I've always booked away from 737s where possible on any airline. .....
And as lifetime Gold, I always appreciated the much higher chance (still miniscule as Gold) to u/g on Boeing over Airbus on UA (Airbii now being converted to have same amount of FC seats as Boeing ^ ).

And I'll be happy to fly my first MAX once they are flying. On NA (Norteamericano) based carriers, maybe others as well
EmailKid is offline  
Old Apr 19, 2019, 10:29 am
  #1181  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by coolbeans202
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-can...ts-11555579802

"Aviation regulators in Canada, Europe, China and Brazil previously indicated they would conduct their own safety reviews of the software fix to the automated flight-control systemknown as MCASinstead of accepting the FAAs analysis and decision to require only interactive and self-instructional training on laptops or other electronic devices."
...
"The situation marks a sharp departure from tradition. For decades, major safety decisions by the FAA affecting American-built aircraft were routinely embraced by foreign counterparts. Trust and cooperation have frayed following the second of the two recent 737 MAX crashes."
And Canada is looking like it is going to require simulator training, which the FAA is trying to help Boeing avoid. At this point Boeing (in its desire not to upset its business case for that MAX "you can just have your 737 pilots fly it, with no extra training or certification required") and the FAA are shredding that little credibility it has left. Given everything that has happened, and the by now clear different performance of the MAX without a bunch of computer overlay (overlay which killed 300 people), it is 110% clear that pilots should be trained on the actual performance of the MAX when the software overrides are turned off. That the FAA would try to hold this line suggests to me - and clearly to other national safety administrations - that the FAA is a wholly captive agency, which can not be trusted.

And lets be clear what happened here, in 2 years American has forfeited its credibility as the regulator of worldwide aviation, which also happens to be its biggest export industry. Boeing is going to long rue that it took over the FAA, because other aviation safety agencies are going to start making demands on Boeing, and Boeing will not be able to rely upon FAA certification and decisions.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2019, 12:23 am
  #1182  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,960
...and now there is report of 787 production problems: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/b...-problems.html
username is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2019, 6:10 am
  #1183  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.8MM
Posts: 6,278
Originally Posted by username
...and now there is report of 787 production problems: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/b...-problems.html
There's no way that shoddy piece of writing would have made it "to print" if there wasn't a current MAX "controversy".
It's full of vagueness and innuendoes.

"Dan Ormson, who worked for American Airlines until retiring this year,
regularly found debris while inspecting Dreamliners in North Charleston,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."

Good. That was your job, Mr. Ormson, and one of the reasons for the inspection.

"Jane Doe, who worked for The New York Times as a proofreader until retiring this year,
regularly found spelling errors while inspecting news articles in New York,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."


What a non-story!

Last edited by narvik; Apr 21, 2019 at 6:18 am
narvik is online now  
Old Apr 21, 2019, 6:17 am
  #1184  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: 4me
Posts: 11,958
Originally Posted by narvik
"Dan Ormson, who worked for American Airlines until retiring this year, regularly found debris while inspecting Dreamliners in North Charleston, according to three people with knowledge of the situation."

Good. That was your job, Mr. Ormson, and one of the reasons for the inspection.

What a non-story!
Waiting for the re-fuelers to reveal that 787's land with fuel tanks that aren't as full as when the aircraft took off!
TomMM is online now  
Old Apr 21, 2019, 7:29 am
  #1185  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,628
Originally Posted by narvik
"Jane Doe, who worked for The New York Times as a proofreader until retiring this year,
regularly found spelling errors while inspecting news articles in New York,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."


What a non-story!
Horrible analogy. I don't know of any proofreading error in history that resulting in killing hundreds of people. Metal shavings inside an engine are hardly analogous to spelling errors. Wiring errors have caused several fires and fatalities in planes over the years.

I. want. my. planes. safe. To do so, I expect an absolutely relentless focus on safety in the design, construction, and maintenance of planes. Anything less results in catastrophe, not spelling errors.
DenverBrian is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.