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 18, 2019, 7:32 pm
#1801
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,692
That entire model series is grounded worldwide, and has been for three months now.
Jun 18, 2019, 8:09 pm
#1802
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Adding electric trim in the first place increases the probability of a trim runaway; much less likely to have runaway trim without electric augmentation to trim actuation. The existence of the speed trim system, adding another way to actuate the electric trim, increases the probability of a trim runaway. Same for MCAS. In all cases the engineering judgement was the tradeoff was worthwhile.
There were undoubtedly certifiable alternatives to MCAS. They all had their own set of tradeoffs for technical capabilities and failure modes, in addition to cost and schedule.
Jun 18, 2019, 11:00 pm
#1803
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Jun 19, 2019, 1:21 am
#1804
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
No its the quick profit via cuts, manage quarter to quarter, while milking an oligopoly advise of the Hunter Keays of the world that is at fault. People who went to third rate collages and are now advising major businesses, and have no idea what quality is. The common approach of Smisek and the management of Boeing over the last 15 years is noteworthy though.
American Airlines’ pilots union ‘concerned’ about fixes for Boeing 737 Max after crashes
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/amer...-training.html
FAA Says Boeing to Revise Its Analysis of 737 Max Software Fix
https://about.bgov.com/news/faa-says...-software-fix/
The Boeing employee who would put his family on a 737 Max
https://mynorthwest.com/1422784/jame...ing-interview/
Boeing finds the first buyer for a 737 Max since its grounding
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/busin...ale/index.html
House to hold second hearing on Boeing 737 Max
Among those scheduled to testify are ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ pilot Sully Sullenberger
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...=.8027287de6aa
Jun 19, 2019, 8:43 am
#1805
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,597
It's based on the same 50 year old airframe design and plenty of people around here have been suggesting that airlines convert MAX orders to NG orders.
Jun 19, 2019, 11:29 am
#1806
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
From a safety perspective the aircraft has been involved in a disproportionate number of runway overrun incidents, however fortunately these are generally without loss of life. It has a better safety record overall than the MAX.
From the perspective of passenger comfort, it’s terrible. Cramped, very loud, floor is too high placing the windows at one’s torso like a CRJ. Lacks the ability to board though a 2L door which slows boarding/deplaning. Boeing has decided to offer an option to cram even more seats into the aircraft reducing the lavs to the size of a tiny closet with a sink about the size of two iPhones placed end to end.
From the perspective of passenger comfort, it’s terrible. Cramped, very loud, floor is too high placing the windows at one’s torso like a CRJ. Lacks the ability to board though a 2L door which slows boarding/deplaning. Boeing has decided to offer an option to cram even more seats into the aircraft reducing the lavs to the size of a tiny closet with a sink about the size of two iPhones placed end to end.
Jun 19, 2019, 11:45 am
#1807
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
From a safety perspective the aircraft has been involved in a disproportionate number of runway overrun incidents, however fortunately these are generally without loss of life. It has a better safety record overall than the MAX.
From the perspective of passenger comfort, it’s terrible. Cramped, very loud, floor is too high placing the windows at one’s torso like a CRJ. Lacks the ability to board though a 2L door which slows boarding/deplaning. Boeing has decided to offer an option to cram even more seats into the aircraft reducing the lavs to the size of a tiny closet with a sink about the size of two iPhones placed end to end.
From the perspective of passenger comfort, it’s terrible. Cramped, very loud, floor is too high placing the windows at one’s torso like a CRJ. Lacks the ability to board though a 2L door which slows boarding/deplaning. Boeing has decided to offer an option to cram even more seats into the aircraft reducing the lavs to the size of a tiny closet with a sink about the size of two iPhones placed end to end.
Jun 19, 2019, 12:30 pm
#1808
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
There is plenty wrong with it, just nothing quite as life-threatening as the MAX.
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
Jun 19, 2019, 12:35 pm
#1809
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,300
There is plenty wrong with it, just nothing quite as life-threatening as the MAX.
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
Jun 19, 2019, 1:52 pm
#1810
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
There is plenty wrong with it, just nothing quite as life-threatening as the MAX.
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
And here's Boeing, having learned nothing from all of this saying simulator training prior to returning MAXs to service is unnecessary. Absolutely ridiculous.
https://news.yahoo.com/sully-sullenb...172033182.html
To require pilots to attend simulator training just to practice RUNAWAY TRIM memory items, pressing 4 buttons to shut down the trim (disabling MCAS) is a complete waste of resources.
I’d bet the FAA will require at all annual recurrent trainings an emphasis of an instructor performed demonstration on improper MCAS (Runaway Trim) recovery procedures. Sometimes the most effective form of training is demonstrating what not to do. Unfortunately we have two very recent examples of that.
Reinforcing RUNAWAY TRIM procedures at the next cycle of recurrent training would be an effective solution. Just one pilot’s opinion.
Last edited by clubord; Jun 19, 2019 at 3:04 pm
Jun 19, 2019, 2:46 pm
#1811
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
From the linked article:
In a commentary in March on CBS MarketWatch, Sullenberger said "there is too cozy a relationship between the industry and the regulators" for proper oversight to be assured.
I think that this sums up the root cause of the issues nicely. We need real independent oversight. I hope that the outcome of these congressional hearings is that they don't just accept what the FAA says and ignore everything else.
In a commentary in March on CBS MarketWatch, Sullenberger said "there is too cozy a relationship between the industry and the regulators" for proper oversight to be assured.
I think that this sums up the root cause of the issues nicely. We need real independent oversight. I hope that the outcome of these congressional hearings is that they don't just accept what the FAA says and ignore everything else.
Jun 19, 2019, 6:53 pm
#1812
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 19
Washington (CNN)The pilot who orchestrated the dramatic plane landing in the Hudson River 10 years ago told a congressional panel Wednesday that he can see how crews would have struggled during the recent Boeing 737 MAX crashes after he spent time in a simulator running recreations of the doomed flights.
"I recently experienced all these warnings in a 737 MAX flight simulator during recreations of the accident flights. Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time before they could have solved the problems. Prior to these accidents, I think it is unlikely that any US airline pilots were confronted with this scenario in simulator training," Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger told the House Transportation Committee during a hearing on the embattled plane model.
P.S. After watching 60 min Australia on 737 MAX story and older Al Jazeera investigation on 787 Dreamliner, I feel very worried setting a foot into Boeing air plane.
"I recently experienced all these warnings in a 737 MAX flight simulator during recreations of the accident flights. Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews could have run out of time before they could have solved the problems. Prior to these accidents, I think it is unlikely that any US airline pilots were confronted with this scenario in simulator training," Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger told the House Transportation Committee during a hearing on the embattled plane model.
P.S. After watching 60 min Australia on 737 MAX story and older Al Jazeera investigation on 787 Dreamliner, I feel very worried setting a foot into Boeing air plane.
Jun 19, 2019, 7:02 pm
#1813
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
"Sullenberger's experience in a 737 MAX simulator made him see how pilots ran out of time"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/polit...rio/index.html
Jun 23, 2019, 7:39 am
#1814
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
Boeing sued by 400+ pilots in class action over MAX's 'unprecedented cover up’ - ABC
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-...82?pfmredir=sm
“The MCAS function was not made explicit to pilots.
In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent "any new training that required a simulator" — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.”
Edited to add archive link for article - https://archive.fo/CQRk6
“The MCAS function was not made explicit to pilots.
In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent "any new training that required a simulator" — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.”
Edited to add archive link for article - https://archive.fo/CQRk6
Last edited by J.Edward; Jun 23, 2019 at 8:26 am Reason: add archive link
Jun 23, 2019, 8:18 am
#1815
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,692
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-...82?pfmredir=sm
“The MCAS function was not made explicit to pilots.
In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent "any new training that required a simulator" — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.”
“The MCAS function was not made explicit to pilots.
In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent "any new training that required a simulator" — a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.”
And ABC Australia is not accurate in some aspects - the planes weren't grounded worldwide by "presidential decree."
Standing by for what the major news sources say about this.