Jan 4, 2021, 1:37 am
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
Jun 15, 2019, 9:04 am
#1771
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.
It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
Jun 15, 2019, 12:48 pm
#1772
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,597
It's a little different than that. When you're spending billions of dollars to buy multiple units that cost a hundred million or so each, you're going to involve yourself in the design process early in negotiating requirements and in the manufacturing process to review the manufacture of the units you're getting, and you'll probably be involved in design trades that could cost you money whether up front or in the long run. I wouldn't blame the airlines for the crashes, but customer desire to not have the MAX come in as a new type that required not just additional training, but might also complicate logistics of managing pilot pools for an additional type was a factor in why they designed in the MCAS. Why the MCAS behaved or didn't behave the way it did or was expected to looks like a system engineering and config management failure at Boeing.
Jun 15, 2019, 8:49 pm
#1773
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,174
The Max -7/-8/-9 are not stretches. The cabin of the 737-8 MAX is the same size as the 737-800; 737-9 MAX is the same size as the 737-900; and 737-7 MAX will be the same size as the 737-700.
The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.
It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.
It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
But since you mention no size changes, then why was it even designed?
Jun 15, 2019, 10:32 pm
#1774
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Aircraft are regularly updated with small, and at times, large changes to improve reliability, performance and efficiency.
Jun 15, 2019, 11:47 pm
#1775
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,174
I would view the initial 777 and 787 as along the lines of what we would like to see for the 737 - a rethinking of what is possible and go from there, almost a clean slate, v a desire to leverage 90% of prior and tinker. The 767/757 IIRC are more the latter.
Jun 16, 2019, 8:35 am
#1776
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
By all historical accounts, this is what Boeing wanted to do. However, it’s customers wouldn’t pay the higher price. It’s a dilemma much akin to what the airlines face with passengers: the passengers desire innovative, leading products but only pay rock bottom prices. How do you make a business case to invest in something new?
Jun 16, 2019, 9:11 am
#1777
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
There are other changes as well which reduce landing speed and improve handling characteristics and tail-clearance as well as improved avionics and weather radar systems.
Jun 16, 2019, 9:18 am
#1778
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
By all historical accounts, this is what Boeing wanted to do. However, it’s customers wouldn’t pay the higher price. It’s a dilemma much akin to what the airlines face with passengers: the passengers desire innovative, leading products but only pay rock bottom prices. How do you make a business case to invest in something new?
Yes, some historically loyal airlines may have been miffed for a little bit and purchased some A320 (which is already happening anyway at this point) however the reality is that if Boeing had really come up with a new revolutionary aircraft to dominate the narrow body market, it would have been a success. The A320 isn't exactly a modern aircraft today, with or without new engines. The business case has to be centered around proactivity and long-term profit. Not short-term sales. If this continues, Boeing will continue to always be a step behind in the narrow body market.
Jun 16, 2019, 9:28 am
#1779
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 843
The Max -7/-8/-9 are not stretches. The cabin of the 737-8 MAX is the same size as the 737-800; 737-9 MAX is the same size as the 737-900; and 737-7 MAX will be the same size as the 737-700.
The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.
It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.
It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
Jun 16, 2019, 11:10 am
#1780
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
You give them no other option by closing down the 737 line entirely and ending production. This is pretty much exactly what Boeing did with the 757, forcing everyone into 737NGs.
Yes, some historically loyal airlines may have been miffed for a little bit and purchased some A320 (which is already happening anyway at this point) however the reality is that if Boeing had really come up with a new revolutionary aircraft to dominate the narrow body market, it would have been a success. The A320 isn't exactly a modern aircraft today, with or without new engines. The business case has to be centered around proactivity and long-term profit. Not short-term sales. If this continues, Boeing will continue to always be a step behind in the narrow body market.
Yes, some historically loyal airlines may have been miffed for a little bit and purchased some A320 (which is already happening anyway at this point) however the reality is that if Boeing had really come up with a new revolutionary aircraft to dominate the narrow body market, it would have been a success. The A320 isn't exactly a modern aircraft today, with or without new engines. The business case has to be centered around proactivity and long-term profit. Not short-term sales. If this continues, Boeing will continue to always be a step behind in the narrow body market.
Bottom line, these types of product decisions are not simple. I’ve yet to see a credible industry source that said Boeing should not have offered the MAX in its current configuration. There were clearly issues in development and we have yet to see whether these for unintentional or negligent.
Jun 16, 2019, 12:33 pm
#1781
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
The difference is Boeing couldn’t sell the 757. Demand for the aircraft really spiked (relatively) once the second hand prices dropped. On the other hand, there is still extremely strong demand for the 737, both NG and MAX. What there is not demand for is a new small airplane (NSA) that costs 25%+ more yet doesn’t generate meaningfully higher revenue or lower costs. If Boeing tried to “kill” the 737 and push customers into a NSA, they’d really be helping Airbus get sales for their lower cost, lower risk product.
Quite a few airlines have expressed interest in an aircraft slotted between the 737 and 787. This is a large gap which no matter how far it's stretched, the 737 cannot fill.
Jun 16, 2019, 12:42 pm
#1782
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
UA is in trouble because they sold off way too many 757s without foresight, and even if they order A321LRs or some other plane that can fulfill their thin TATL routes, they have basically pinned their future on the MAX 10. If there is an even longer delay in this variant coming to market / being airworthy, they are going to be at a severe disadvantage relative to DL (which has way more 752s) and AA (which, running the A321T, is already a superior hard product) when it comes to premium TCON, much less the thin TATL routes in the summer/some TATL routes in the winter.
Just something else we can blame SMI/J for, right?
Jun 16, 2019, 5:00 pm
#1783
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: UA gold; WN A; PC plat; Marriott Gold
Posts: 425
I'm booked on a UA flight OGG-SFO in September. United.com is showing it as operated by a MAX. I wanted to change to a different flight that day that's not operated by a MAX and was hoping UA would be like WN and not charge me a change fee. First called the 1K line. The agent went off to check with others for a while, came back and said regular change fee applies. Then tried twitter. UA twitter team said that on their end, my flight's equipment type is actually unassigned. But they agreed to waive the change fee, though I'm responsible for paying the fare differences.
Jun 16, 2019, 5:09 pm
#1784
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: 14,429
Save you money, change will almost certainly happen before your flight.
Jun 18, 2019, 10:38 am
#1785
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Interesting piece in the Post on the testimony of the head of AA's pilot Union on the MAX and Boeing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.1d0c4c216242
Relevant to the discussion in this thread, in his written testimony: Carey said “to make the claim that these accidents would not happen to U.S.-trained pilots is presumptuous and not supported by fact.” and "The huge error of omission is that Boeing failed to disclose the existence of MCAS to the pilot community. The final fatal mistake was, therefore, the absence of robust pilot training in the event that the MCAS failed,”
Relevant to the discussion in this thread, in his written testimony: Carey said “to make the claim that these accidents would not happen to U.S.-trained pilots is presumptuous and not supported by fact.” and "The huge error of omission is that Boeing failed to disclose the existence of MCAS to the pilot community. The final fatal mistake was, therefore, the absence of robust pilot training in the event that the MCAS failed,”