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 May 30, 2019, 8:11 pm
  #1561  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
The problem is poor engineering w.r.t. weight distribution.
There's no problem with the weight distribution. It's an aerodynamic problem, not a weight problem, nor a (often confused) thrust problem.
mduell is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 6:11 am
  #1562  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,639
Originally Posted by VegasGambler
I just don't think that airlines should be able to engage in bait and switch tactics. If they see that people are not comfortable flying in the MAX, airlines could book all flights in other places and make last minute equipment swaps to the MAX. That would be fraud, but it wouldn't surprise me to see certain airlines (not UA) engaging in such tactics.
It may be unethical, but how would it be fraud? No airline guarantees a specific aircraft will operate a specific flight, and all that I know of are quite clear that equipment swaps, seat changes, etc. might happen. When booking a few months out, equipment changes are not even unusual.
Bear96 is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 7:28 am
  #1563  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by uastarflyer

DOT wont do this nor should they. Once it is classified airworthy it is a moot point.

Also the contract we agree to is a trip from A to B. Airplane swaps happen. So be it.
Precisely. If any DOT changes are required, it would be to make time of the essence in transporting from A to B, rather than putting obstacles in the way of that transport. One of the most successful bits of airline regulation is ensuring safety - to suggest that some are safer than others would run counter to decades of policy and do untold damage to the industry, and also the consumers.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 10:49 am
  #1564  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by emcampbe


yup, Im curious as to how booking on the MAX will change as well compared to other aircraft, and how much of a factor that is for various types of flyers.

The question is, if UA allows folks booked on a MAX to swap to another flight on another A/C type, how does this affect..well, everything. Does this change demand enough to affect the fares on a MAX vs. non-MAX flight? Does this change how they are scheduled, for example, so that any given routes frequency of having a MAX is impacted (example: maybe UA intended to schedule all, say, SFO-PDX flights on a MAX, but now wants to split with other aircraft so people afraid of a MAX dont feel the need to book away to another carrier.). How does this specifically affect Hawaii, since it is apparent that many flights there were apparently getting more of these? Down to the, does getting rid of these planes and waiting however long they need to to get their hands on A32X NEOs make more financial sense then keeping them. Because there is a line somewhere, where the cost-savings of having these planes is outweighed if X% of UA pax will simply refuse to fly it. So what is that line, and will UA hit it. And how much will Boeing do at that point. I wonder if a simulator training requirement will move that line, also.
Lots of people - particularly people who are over 50 - think that the world will be the same in the future, as it was in the past. Outside of the nationalist "if its not Boeing I'm not going" crowd, almost everyone was airplane agnostic in the past. Outside of a preference for the airbus twins vs the 737, I certainly never had a preference that was strong. And 20 years ago, it was practically impossible to know what A/C you would end up on.

Today, web-sites tell you the pitch of the seats and the A/C that will be used. As Airbus model for model now has wider cabins, I would expect them to push hard to get that information included into booking sites, and people who are internet savvy now have the information to avoid the MAX if they want to.

So while in the 70s the issues with the 727 quickly went away, and to a lesser extent they went away with the DC-10 - although that is not so clear, ultimately the AC was killed off by its poor reputation - I am not so sure that the MAX issues will fade so quickly. There is simply an ability of people to avoid flying on Boeing aircraft today that did not exist in the past, and the under 50s will in many cases seek out that information and act on it.

Put another way, brand damage to Boeing may have a cost to Boeing that it would not have had in another era.
spin88 is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 11:54 am
  #1565  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Originally Posted by Bear96
It may be unethical, but how would it be fraud? No airline guarantees a specific aircraft will operate a specific flight, and all that I know of are quite clear that equipment swaps, seat changes, etc. might happen. When booking a few months out, equipment changes are not even unusual.
It's a question of intent.
VegasGambler is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 2:47 pm
  #1566  
Moderator: United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
Originally Posted by uastarflyer
Also the contract we agree to is a trip from A to B. Airplane swaps happen. So be it.
Aircraft swaps can and do at times result in the customer being able to modify or terminate the contract (e.g. when mainline operated sector switches to an express operated sector).

As for the MAX, I personally remain unconvinced.

In aviation things must work right EVERY time, ALL the time or else people die. Based on the little I know about this incident Boeing appears to have pushed a cheaper redesign of a fifty-plus year old design beyond its limits vs a more expensive clean-sheet 737 replacement. Boeing gambled and the traveling public paid the price, in blood, for Boeing's wager.

My (perhaps irrational) worry is while the MCAS system maybe "fixed", how many other systems did Boeing incorporate and the regulators sign off on - hence I find myself asking the question "How do I know the plane is now safe?"

Take the word of the same company who said it was safe when it first flew?

Trust the regulators who signed off on the initial round of "fixes" after the first crash?

I may not be the sharpest tack in the box but my momma dun raise no fool. Boeing, the regulators, and the carriers will need more than a mea culpa to restore my faith in the MAX.

As such, and a personal decision - and this will obviously differ from person to person - I will not book a MAX nor will I board a MAX if equipment is swapped in, I will request UA/AA/etc. switch me to another flight.

Last edited by J.Edward; May 31, 2019 at 2:56 pm
J.Edward is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:03 pm
  #1567  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,124
J.Esward - I agree with you 100% on a personal level. Even if that POV is derided as naive. My $$, my choice.

hopefully UA and others waive change fees through say 6 months after the plane is back in service.
uastarflyer is online now  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:04 pm
  #1568  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by J.Edward
In aviation things must work right EVERY time, ALL the time or else people die. Based on the little I know about this incident Boeing appears to have pushed a cheaper redesign of a fifty-plus year old design beyond its limits vs a more expensive clean-sheet 737 replacement. Boeing gambled and the traveling public paid the price, in blood, for Boeing's wager.

There is a lot of information out there about the causes of these two crashes (and there is still a lot to be known), but what you do know is not factually correct.

The accidents likely occurred because of a number of factors (broken sensors, poor maintenance, lack of clear information to pilots, lack of redundancy, pilot error, etc), but there is nothing wrong with the physical design of the MAX. Never has been.
Newman55 is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:13 pm
  #1569  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
Originally Posted by J.Edward
In aviation things must work right EVERY time, ALL the time or else people die.
That is both an impossible standard and factually untrue. Many, many systems fail every day on commercial aircraft. It's extremely rare for anyone to die.

Originally Posted by J.Edward
Based on the little I know about this incident Boeing appears to have pushed a cheaper redesign of a fifty-plus year old design beyond its limits vs a more expensive clean-sheet 737 replacement. Boeing gambled and the traveling public paid the price, in blood, for Boeing's wager.
You admit that you know "little" about this incident, and then go on to make some pretty heated statements anyway.

Did the laws of physics change in the last 50 years? In any other context, 50 years of safe operating experience would be a positive, not a negative. And the focus on the cost is somewhat misplaced. Customers insisted upon a 737 replacement that could interoperate with their existing fleets. Boeing looked at a clean-sheet design and found that it wasn't financially viable because customers didn't want it. If you want to blame anybody for being cheap, blame the largest operators of the 737.

Originally Posted by J.Edward
My (perhaps irrational) worry is while the MCAS system maybe "fixed", how many other systems did Boeing incorporate and the regulators sign off on - hence I find myself asking the question "How do I know the plane is now safe?"
You, yourself, admit that you're being irrational. The MAX will be the most-scrutinized aircraft in history. If you're dedicated to this "Boeing being motivated by greed" theory, keep in mind that a third incident would scuttle not just the MAX but likely the company.

Originally Posted by J.Edward
Take the word of the same company who said it was safe when it first flew?

Trust the regulators who signed off on the initial round of "fixes" after the first crash?
The same regulators who... signed off on whatever other plane you'd fly? The same regulators who signed off on the fixes to the Airbus 320 after its initial demonstration flight plunged into the trees at an airshow? (In an incident in which the plane really did fly itself into the ground).

And there wasn't really a first round of fixes -- just a reiteration of the original procedure of what to do if you find yourself in a runaway stabilizer situation. Preliminary indications are that the ET pilots deviated from that procedure.

Originally Posted by J.Edward
As such, and a personal decision - and this will obviously differ from person to person - I will not book a MAX nor will I board a MAX if equipment is swapped in, I will request UA/AA/etc. switch me to another flight.
I feel that UA is taking the absolutely wrong approach by allowing customers to change. They're validating these fears. If it's not safe enough that everybody should feel comfortable to fly on it, why would UA operate it? And if it is safe to fly, why would they allow people to change off of it?
jsloan is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:21 pm
  #1570  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
Originally Posted by J.Edward

My (perhaps irrational) worry is while the MCAS system maybe "fixed", how many other systems did Boeing incorporate and the regulator8s sign off on - hence I find myself asking the question "How do I know the plane is now safe?"
This is my main concern about the 737 Max. Given the certification process that allowed MCAS to be certified, there is a heightened risk of other safety issues. 737 Max needs a full recertification review before it is allowed to fly again.
BF263533 is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:22 pm
  #1571  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by jsloan

I feel that UA is taking the absolutely wrong approach by allowing customers to change. They're validating these fears. If it's not safe enough that everybody should feel comfortable to fly on it, why would UA operate it? And if it is safe to fly, why would they allow people to change off of it?
I think this is just a PR move that will only be present for a few months after the plane is cleared again and then quietly disappear. Once there is no more press coverage, people will go back to ignore the aircraft type when booking.
Newman55 is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:27 pm
  #1572  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
Originally Posted by BF263533
This is my main concern about the 737 Max. Given the certification process that allowed MCAS to be certified, there is a heightened risk of other safety issues. 737 Max needs a full recertification review before it is allowed to fly again.
What, exactly, was wrong with the certification process? All I've heard is a bunch of innuendo, backed by no evidence at all. "It crashed" is not, on its own, proof of a failure of the certification process, because "impossible to crash" is not a certification requirement.

Originally Posted by Newman55
I think this is just a PR move that will only be present for a few months after the plane is cleared again and then quietly disappear. Once there is no more press coverage, people will go back to ignore the aircraft type when booking.
Probably, but I still think it sends the wrong message. To me, it projects a lack of confidence.
jsloan is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 3:43 pm
  #1573  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Programs: UA 1K, LH FT, Marriott Plat, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PPlus
Posts: 72
I don't understand why people that are concerned and may be driven by their feelings are given answers based on facts. IME that has never worked. That seems to be happening in this thread quite a bit. Do you really expect everyone to be an aerospace engineer or pilot and then to base their decision on whether to fly it or not on facts?

I am an aerospace engineer myself who has never worked in that field (hence: just the theoretical knowledge without the experience in the area). Went straight to automotive. I do see a lot of customers in fear when they see news coverage of a car that burned to the ground. And what happens is, no matter how you try to explain or what you fix or scrutinize or how much you try to appease them, they will most likely switch to another brand - regardless of the actual circumstances which are normally just a sequence of unfavorable factor leading to those things (see MAX). The only things that's left here is to try and rebuild trust by never letting that happen again, and believe me, it takes time.

BTW: I sure do understand the physics behind flying - I wouldn't try to avoid the MAX by all costs - but for now I certainly prefer to be on another plane if possible. Same as with the 787 battery issues.

Just my 2 cents
mynolix is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 4:02 pm
  #1574  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
Originally Posted by mynolix
I don't understand why people that are concerned and may be driven by their feelings are given answers based on facts. IME that has never worked. That seems to be happening in this thread quite a bit. Do you really expect everyone to be an aerospace engineer or pilot and then to base their decision on whether to fly it or not on facts?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm giving answers in order to try to combat the misinformation that others may find later, reading through this. I'd wager that the majority of people who read this thread never comment on it. Perhaps they come looking for facts.

And, no, I don't expect everyone to be an aerospace engineer or pilot. (I'm neither). I'm qualified neither to build nor to fly a plane, but that doesn't mean that I'm not qualified to read and to understand information provided by those who are. In the same manner, I can have a discussion about aerodynamics and automotive safety without being able to build a car.
jsloan is offline  
Old May 31, 2019, 4:13 pm
  #1575  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Programs: UA 1K, LH FT, Marriott Plat, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PPlus
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by jsloan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm giving answers in order to try to combat the misinformation that others may find later, reading through this. I'd wager that the majority of people who read this thread never comment on it. Perhaps they come looking for facts.

And, no, I don't expect everyone to be an aerospace engineer or pilot. (I'm neither). I'm qualified neither to build nor to fly a plane, but that doesn't mean that I'm not qualified to read and to understand information provided by those who are. In the same manner, I can have a discussion about aerodynamics and automotive safety without being able to build a car.
I agree. And I certainly value the information provided by everyone in this forum. My point was rather that the profound and thorough explanations might help understand the issue. But they mostly don't do away emotional factors.
mynolix 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.