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
#1561
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,651
#1562
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,639
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.
#1563
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,215
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.
#1564
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
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.
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.
#1565
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
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.
#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
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
#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.
hopefully UA and others waive change fees through say 6 months after the plane is back in service.
#1568
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
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.
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.
#1569
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
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.
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.
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.
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?
#1570
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
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.
#1571
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
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?
#1572
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
Probably, but I still think it sends the wrong message. To me, it projects a lack of confidence.
#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
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
#1574
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,186
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?
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.
#1575
Join Date: Sep 2018
Programs: UA 1K, LH FT, Marriott Plat, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PPlus
Posts: 72
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.
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.