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
#1666
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,388
If you are hundreds (or thousands) of times more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash, does it really matter if it’s 900x or 850x? If we could get half as much attention on traffic conditions as we’re getting on the MAX, we could save a lot more lives.
#1667
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,193
The interior of the aircraft also doesn't have anything to do with the flight performance of the basic design, with or without new engines in the MAX configuration. I agree the new lavatories are ungodly and a good enough reason for me to book away from these airframes but they have nothing to do with the aircraft's lift or pitch performance, nothing (that we know of) to do with any of the flight control software OR hardware. Could you equip the 737 frames for wider seats and more leg room? Sure you could -- you'd carry fewer passengers but Air Force One doesn't transport as many people as Lufthansa's 747-8s or 747-400s either. Trump's personal 757 also carries a lot fewer passengers than one of UA's but in a lot more comfort at a lot LOT more cost per seat.
#1668
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,831
And at the point of grounding, was doing at least 750+ daily flights (again at a conservative 2 flights a day) and rapidly increasing with new deliveries.
UA gets 3-4 flights a day for 737-800s,
So at 3 flights day, the order of magnitude estimate would be nearly 400K MAX flights and adding 1K+ daily.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 9, 2019 at 12:42 pm
#1669
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
You could say the same thing about any corporate CEO (try the CEOs of CNN, CBS, Warner Brothers, and Facebook for prevarication), celebrity (Jussie Smollett anyone?), or politician (too darned many to name). My point is that they did not admit causing the accident, they admitted to adding confusion to the cockpit at a time when you really don't want it. That means their software definitely needs some fixes and improvement but it is NOT the mea culpa some here seem to try to make it.
.....
The interior of the aircraft also doesn't have anything to do with the flight performance of the basic design, with or without new engines in the MAX configuration. I agree the new lavatories are ungodly and a good enough reason for me to book away from these airframes but they have nothing to do with the aircraft's lift or pitch performance, nothing (that we know of) to do with any of the flight control software OR hardware. Could you equip the 737 frames for wider seats and more leg room? Sure you could -- you'd carry fewer passengers but Air Force One doesn't transport as many people as Lufthansa's 747-8s or 747-400s either. Trump's personal 757 also carries a lot fewer passengers than one of UA's but in a lot more comfort at a lot LOT more cost per seat.
.....
The interior of the aircraft also doesn't have anything to do with the flight performance of the basic design, with or without new engines in the MAX configuration. I agree the new lavatories are ungodly and a good enough reason for me to book away from these airframes but they have nothing to do with the aircraft's lift or pitch performance, nothing (that we know of) to do with any of the flight control software OR hardware. Could you equip the 737 frames for wider seats and more leg room? Sure you could -- you'd carry fewer passengers but Air Force One doesn't transport as many people as Lufthansa's 747-8s or 747-400s either. Trump's personal 757 also carries a lot fewer passengers than one of UA's but in a lot more comfort at a lot LOT more cost per seat.
#1670
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,193
I don't like the cramped interior of modern planes either but it's utter nonsense to blame that all on the 737MAX. I flew a LH A321 yesterday and the seats were harder than any 737 I've flown (granted, I haven't been on the MAX yet). The rows were just as cramped -- the only reason I wasn't crammed in like everyone else was that I was in 11D behind the crew seat which was moved forward of the other seats in row 10 (and 10E felt free to put her water bottle and book in the basket behind the crew seat for her easy reach). The UA A319 I flew into DEN the day before was just as cramped although I was in the front in 2B so had plenty of padding on the seat. The sardine-like packing is pretty universal among airlines now -- and again, I place that on the airlines for specifying those configurations rather than the aircraft manufacturers who are meeting their customers' demands.
Again, let's separate topics and get to facts on the 737 MAX itself. The 737 itself is one of the most successful airframes in aviation history, historically one of the safest to fly, so claiming some decades-long assault on passengers is just ridiculous. Generalized complaints in pilot feedback to FAA are interesting and deserve investigation but not quite in the same league as real specific problem reports. This piling on with complaints about seats and IFE just takes away from any hard specifics about the MAX and its grounding.
Again, let's separate topics and get to facts on the 737 MAX itself. The 737 itself is one of the most successful airframes in aviation history, historically one of the safest to fly, so claiming some decades-long assault on passengers is just ridiculous. Generalized complaints in pilot feedback to FAA are interesting and deserve investigation but not quite in the same league as real specific problem reports. This piling on with complaints about seats and IFE just takes away from any hard specifics about the MAX and its grounding.
#1671
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 843
... and the only way I can see you getting that impression is from a lot of false information and bad reporting. Boeing admitted their software design added confusion to the cockpit at a time when the pilot in command needed to clarify the situation. On the other hand, there is a LOT of felgercarb in the media and in this thread about “pushing the 737 too far” with the engine placement (which condition apparently caused upward pitch which is why Boeing put in MCAS to make the plane feel like a prior generation 737 when under manual control). I’m sure there’s still information we haven’t seen yet but what we HAVE seen shows the two planes were not getting sufficient pitch on take-off — the engine placement being blamed should actually have countered that.
Your last sentence has two inaccuracies. The planes had more than sufficient pitch on takeoff. The problem is that the Angle of Attack sensor was faulty and therefore, indicated a pitch that was significantly higher than reality. This false indication then triggered MCAS, which is designed to engage when a plane’s angle of attack gets too high.
Which leads to the second inaccuracy:
The engine placement problem is that it generates additional lift forward of the center of gravity at high angles of attack, which the two crashed planes never actually experienced, despite the faulty AOA sensor thinking otherwise. Under normal operating conditions, the placement of the engines had little to no effect on the overall lift of the plane (at least, not notably different from a 737NG). So, the engine placement would have had no effect on the plane’s pitch on takeoff, and wouldn’t have needed it anyway.
The reason for MCAS is that, when the angle of attack gets too high, the engines start to generate lift, which then has the potential to increase the pitch-up tendency, bringing the plane closer to a stall. From everything I have seen/read, this really only occurs at angles of attack that would be outside of routine operating conditions anyway.
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.
#1672
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,217
So my booked flight at the end of August is showing one leg on a 737MAX (actually the return in September). I know there have been some reports that the FAA may have cleared the plane by then (and I am assuming this is why the 737MAX is shown as the plane). When booking the flight I did not notice there was a 737MAX on one leg or I would not have selected that particular routing and I am not certain it was the originally scheduled plane for that route but it was the fourth leg of four for the reservation so it may be I overlooked it (although surprised as I had options and the MAX is not an option I would choose). I am concerned by the plane and have no wish to be one of the Guinea pigs.
1. Has United issued a policy about being able to change the routing or an I going to have to rely on SDC and fare bucket availability?
2. Any suggestion United is going to highlight in the reservation this routing has a 737MAX leg? (If that had been highlighted I certainly would not have chosen that routing).
TIA.
1. Has United issued a policy about being able to change the routing or an I going to have to rely on SDC and fare bucket availability?
2. Any suggestion United is going to highlight in the reservation this routing has a 737MAX leg? (If that had been highlighted I certainly would not have chosen that routing).
TIA.
#1673
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,388
So my booked flight at the end of August is showing one leg on a 737MAX (actually the return in September). I know there have been some reports that the FAA may have cleared the plane by then (and I am assuming this is why the 737MAX is shown as the plane). When booking the flight I did not notice there was a 737MAX on one leg or I would not have selected that particular routing and I am not certain it was the originally scheduled plane for that route but it was the fourth leg of four for the reservation so it may be I overlooked it (although surprised as I had options and the MAX is not an option I would choose). I am concerned by the plane and have no wish to be one of the Guinea pigs.
1. Has United issued a policy about being able to change the routing or an I going to have to rely on SDC and fare bucket availability?
2. Any suggestion United is going to highlight in the reservation this routing has a 737MAX leg? (If that had been highlighted I certainly would not have chosen that routing).
TIA.
1. Has United issued a policy about being able to change the routing or an I going to have to rely on SDC and fare bucket availability?
2. Any suggestion United is going to highlight in the reservation this routing has a 737MAX leg? (If that had been highlighted I certainly would not have chosen that routing).
TIA.
2. No.
#1675
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
Correct, the first officer could have fewer than 1500 hours. In practice, however, the major airlines in the US had been requiring first officers to hold ATP certificates for long before that, so there weren't many passenger 737s flying around the US with non-ATP certificated pilots. Regional airlines were, however, accepting pilots with less experience. (In fact, Colgan Flight 3407 is almost entirely responsible for the increase to 1500 hours, and there hasn't been a mass casualty accident by a US airline since then, although both pilots involved in the accident had more than 1500 hours.)
Last edited by Sykes; Jun 10, 2019 at 3:43 pm
#1676
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
As an example, I was hired to fly 19-seat turboprops in 1991. At the time, I had over 2,400 hours and an ATP. The best I was able to do at around 1,500 hours (1,450 IIRC) was a job flying Grand Canyon tours in a 8-seat, single-engine Cessna. Jobs flying airline jets took several thousand hours including PIC time in turbines (usually turboprops; sometimes corporate jets). In 1996 I was hired to fly cargo jets with about 5,500 hours. I was still "under qualified" for the major airlines.
The job market changed through the 2000s and we ended up in a position where pilots with much lower times were being hired. That's when the FAA increased the minimum requirements because the job market was no longer ensuring qualified applicants on its own.
#1677
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
Angle of attack sensors don't indicate (or measure) pitch. As the name would imply, they measure angle of attack. Even neglecting the incidence of the wing, the difference is non-trivial in the case we're most concerned about (a climb).
#1678
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,651
That's correct, but it was not a factor. Due to the competitive job market, and a relatively large supply of qualified pilots, airlines were hiring pilots with much more experience than today's 1,500hr requirement (as well as all of the other experience requirements for an ATP). It took 5,000+ hours to be hired by a mainline carrier to work as a flight engineer.
As an example, I was hired to fly 19-seat turboprops in 1991. At the time, I had over 2,400 hours and an ATP. The best I was able to do at around 1,500 hours (1,450 IIRC) was a job flying Grand Canyon tours in a 8-seat, single-engine Cessna. Jobs flying airline jets took several thousand hours including PIC time in turbines (usually turboprops; sometimes corporate jets). In 1996 I was hired to fly cargo jets with about 5,500 hours. I was still "under qualified" for the major airlines.
The job market changed through the 2000s and we ended up in a position where pilots with much lower times were being hired. That's when the FAA increased the minimum requirements because the job market was no longer ensuring qualified applicants on its own.
As an example, I was hired to fly 19-seat turboprops in 1991. At the time, I had over 2,400 hours and an ATP. The best I was able to do at around 1,500 hours (1,450 IIRC) was a job flying Grand Canyon tours in a 8-seat, single-engine Cessna. Jobs flying airline jets took several thousand hours including PIC time in turbines (usually turboprops; sometimes corporate jets). In 1996 I was hired to fly cargo jets with about 5,500 hours. I was still "under qualified" for the major airlines.
The job market changed through the 2000s and we ended up in a position where pilots with much lower times were being hired. That's when the FAA increased the minimum requirements because the job market was no longer ensuring qualified applicants on its own.
#1679
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 207
At the end of the day, the “737” brand, either classic, NG, or MAX, is tarnished in the eyes of the average Joe. Unlike the age of AA191 and the DC-10 groundings, social media and the internet have taken a huge toll on the 737 and it’s going to take years, if that, for Boeing to dig themselves out.
Maybe it’s time to bring the 797 out now.
Maybe it’s time to bring the 797 out now.
#1680
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,594
At the end of the day, the “737” brand, either classic, NG, or MAX, is tarnished in the eyes of the average Joe. Unlike the age of AA191 and the DC-10 groundings, social media and the internet have taken a huge toll on the 737 and it’s going to take years, if that, for Boeing to dig themselves out.