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
#1651
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,126
Prior to 2013, there may have been a whole bunch of them. The ATP requirement used to be 250 hours and how many people refused to get on a plane in the US as a result?
#1652
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
The ATP was 1,500 hours prior to 2013 (aside from a narrow set of exceptions), but we didn't require an ATP for second in command.
#1654
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
To quote someone upthread:
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 8, 2019 at 8:25 pm Reason: removed modification of quote
#1655
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,700
And I never want the motto of any aircraft manufacturer to be "In the real world, accidents happen."
#1656
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,406
Nothing I, or anyone else, can say is going to convince you, but there has been no evidence presented thus far of any negligence on the part of Boeing or the FAA. There have been an awful lot of wild accusations that change as each new bit of information comes in, but no evidence.
It’s possible that Boeing and the FAA did everything to the best of their abilities, that the MAX is a perfectly safe aircraft, that the MCAS is a well-designed system, and that two planes full of people have passed away due to two horrific accidents. You are assuming that the accidents necessarily prove that one of the other statements is incorrect. They don’t — especially given that the expected mitigation of an MCAS failure was for the pilots to recognize the situation and to disable the electric stabilizer control.
I’d much rather have a manufacturer say “we design our systems to fail safely” than “we design our systems not to fail.” The 100% success rate that you and others have pushed for is unrealistic and is, rightly, not used by any manufacturer.
#1657
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
At the time of the crash, 8,600 MAX flights per week were occurring. I'm not sure what the big deal is.
#1658
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,406
You can argue that the same sizes are too small to be able to draw absolute conclusions, but you certainly can't rule out the possibility that the MAX, as currently designed, is more prone to enter an emergency state than the NG. Boeing is trying to make that less likely, for which I, personally, applaud them.
You can also argue that people are dramatically overestimating their own personal odds of injury if they were to step onto an (unmodified) MAX, and I'd agree with that. I'd fly them if they were in the air today. People are arguing over the 9th decimal place in a number that's dominated by the likelihood of being injured in almost any other way. According to the latest WHO statistics, in the most recent year with data, over 250,000 people died in automobile accidents in China; over 200,000 more in India; nearly 40,000 each in the US and Indonesia, and over 25,000 in Ethiopia. You're safer on the plane than you are on the ground.
But that doesn't mean that the deaths aren't a big deal. They, rightly, are.
#1659
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
According to the latest WHO statistics, in the most recent year with data, over 250,000 people died in automobile accidents in China; over 200,000 more in India; nearly 40,000 each in the US and Indonesia, and over 25,000 in Ethiopia. You're safer on the plane than you are on the ground.
I have been looking for a stat on how many 737-Max flights there have been.. and I'm unable to find it.
#1660
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,195
I think it’s fair to question whether there were other problems with the software design that may have led to the accidents but the accusations of “pushing the aircraft design” are ridiculous. I am not at all happy about Boeing following the Airbus design philosophy WRT aviation automation — if they did — but that is a software problem, not a a problem with the design of the airframe or the physical/mechanical engineering behind it.
The basic idea behind MCAS — making the plane feel similar to prior models — is a pretty good one and doesn’t require some huge conspiracy at Boeing or between Boeing and the FAA. Whether the idea was executed well is a whole other question but again a software engineering issue, not an aerospace design one. As an analogy, look at Tesla’s problems. The battery fire issues are endemic to the overall car design while the Autonavigation ones are software issues that have nothing to do with the hardware engineering of the vehicle.
The problems with both flights appear to have originated with runaway stabilizer trim. Why did the aircraft enter that condition so early in flight and why did the pilots allow that problem to grow? There could have been a problem with the avionics control design that caused the runaway trim but I haven’t seen any evidence of it and so far, all the data made public seems to support a conclusion that the pilots should have noticed it well before it got out of control.
The fact of the matter is that experience matters and the oft-cited “Rule of 10,000” (if you want to be good at something, you need to do it 10,000 times or for 10,000 hours) really is relevant — as is the co-pilots lack of said experience. The captain of the ET flight was busy handling the aircraft and had the co-pilot running critical procedures (which he did incorrectly). That’s precisely the time you want 2 experienced pilots in the cockpit.
#1661
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: LH M&M, BA EC, DL SM
Posts: 5,731
Boeing's CEO has impressively demonstrated over the last few years that he would only admit what can no longer be denied anyway. Not sure I trust him anymore.
#1662
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,700
The fact of the matter is that experience matters and the oft-cited “Rule of 10,000” (if you want to be good at something, you need to do it 10,000 times or for 10,000 hours) really is relevant — as is the co-pilots lack of said experience. The captain of the ET flight was busy handling the aircraft and had the co-pilot running critical procedures (which he did incorrectly). That’s precisely the time you want 2 experienced pilots in the cockpit.
#1663
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,406
The point isn’t to argue whether or not commercial air travel is safer than car travel (it is, on a per-mile basis, on a per-hour basis, and on a per-trip basis, but I agree that these statistics aren’t enough to show that). The point is that the average passenger is more likely, during any one trip, to due in a car crash than a plane crash, regardless of the type of plane.
#1664
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
There is no doubt that commercial air travel is safer than driving. There is some doubt that commercial air travel on a Max is.
I've seen another FTer mention mention a Max crash rate that is higher than the per-trip fatal automobile crash rate by an order of magnitude, but I can't actually find a stat for number of Max flights so I can't verify that.
Of course there is also some doubt that the current rate of crashes is meaningful due to the small sample size. However, simply saying that "we aren't sure" isn't enough to convince me to fly in it. I don't see any good reason to take the risk. The bar is not "fly it unless it's proven unsafe", it's "don't fly it until it's proven safe". The burden of proof is really not on the people claiming it's unsafe, when there are other options that we do know (with a high level of statistical confidence) are quite safe.
Honestly, this whole mess has shaken my confidence in flying in ANY new plane.
I've seen another FTer mention mention a Max crash rate that is higher than the per-trip fatal automobile crash rate by an order of magnitude, but I can't actually find a stat for number of Max flights so I can't verify that.
Of course there is also some doubt that the current rate of crashes is meaningful due to the small sample size. However, simply saying that "we aren't sure" isn't enough to convince me to fly in it. I don't see any good reason to take the risk. The bar is not "fly it unless it's proven unsafe", it's "don't fly it until it's proven safe". The burden of proof is really not on the people claiming it's unsafe, when there are other options that we do know (with a high level of statistical confidence) are quite safe.
Honestly, this whole mess has shaken my confidence in flying in ANY new plane.
#1665
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,700
I find comparing car travel safety to air travel safety, and attempting to claim that because one is "less safe" than the other, then air travel is "safe enough," to be missing the point entirely.