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 23, 2019, 10:48 am
#1816
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
An odd story, currently only ABC in Australia as a legitimate news source (I don't consider Russia Today to be legitimate). None of the legitimate US news sources are picking this story up.
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.
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.
I'm no fan of the media but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This is a pretty standard story. Entity X is being sued by entity Y for Z. It's just the facts -- exactly what a news story should be. Whether the claims are true is up to the court to decide, not the media.
Jun 23, 2019, 12:25 pm
#1817
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,405
I'm no fan of the media but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This is a pretty standard story. Entity X is being sued by entity Y for Z. It's just the facts -- exactly what a news story should be. Whether the claims are true is up to the court to decide, not the media.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be shocked if Boeing didn’t get this thrown out. Under US law, I can’t see how the pilots have standing to sue, as they’re not Boeing customers. The airlines would have standing to sue Boeing, and the pilots would have standing to sue their employers, but I don’t see how the pilots could claim that Boeing harmed them directly (withholding comment on the merits of the suit).
Jun 23, 2019, 1:09 pm
#1818
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,694
The key piece of news here is that the lawsuit was filed. Most of the story is about what the pilots are claiming (the story is not making a judgement about the veracity if the claims).
I'm no fan of the media but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This is a pretty standard story. Entity X is being sued by entity Y for Z. It's just the facts -- exactly what a news story should be. Whether the claims are true is up to the court to decide, not the media.
I'm no fan of the media but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This is a pretty standard story. Entity X is being sued by entity Y for Z. It's just the facts -- exactly what a news story should be. Whether the claims are true is up to the court to decide, not the media.
Jun 23, 2019, 1:33 pm
#1819
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
"By seeking damages for monetary and mental distress, the pilots lodging the class action said they hoped to "deter Boeing and other airplane manufacturers from placing corporate profits ahead of the lives of the pilots, crews, and general public they service"."
Without commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuit, this may be the angle the pilots are perusing.
Jun 23, 2019, 2:02 pm
#1820
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Exactly, this. Saying that they were grounded worldwide by presidential decree is just sloppy, but doesn't seem to be a fabrication or attempt to mislead. They were grounded in the US by presidential decree (executive order; same thing) and grounded worldwide shortly after.
Jun 23, 2019, 2:18 pm
#1821
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: 66,850
Jun 23, 2019, 2:22 pm
#1822
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
For all intents and purposes, MAX was grounded almost everywhere in the word except US when the "decree" was announced / implemented.
Jun 23, 2019, 2:31 pm
#1823
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,694
If facts are going to matter, than facts should matter. <shrugs>
Edited to add: Here is the actual emergency order (NOT a presidential executive order or "decree") from the FAA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/faa-e...=.cee8268aa66b
Last edited by DenverBrian; Jun 23, 2019 at 2:36 pm
Jun 23, 2019, 4:14 pm
#1824
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
Except that there was no such Executive Order. The FAA grounded the plane in the US, as it does in these cases. Trump may have (as he is wont to do) said that "I grounded the plane," but the FAA, as part of its duties, grounded the plane. There is no such "presidential decree." Nor does Trump have any authority to ground a plane "worldwide."
Trump Grounds Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 Fleet
President Trump announced on Wednesday that he is grounding all Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 planes after the Ethiopian Airlines crash on Sunday that claimed 157 lives. “We’re going to be ordering an emergency order to ground all 737 Max 8 and the 737 Max 9 and planes associated with that line,” Trump told reporters. “Any plane currently in the air will go to its destination and thereafter be grounded until further notice.” Airlines have already been notified of the decision, Trump said. “Boeing is an incredible company they are working very, very hard right now and hopefully they’ll very quickly come up with the answer,” Trump added. “But until they do, the planes are grounded.” He said Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration Daniel Elwell, and Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg “are all in agreement with the action.”
Jun 23, 2019, 5:28 pm
#1825
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Interestingly enough, in the quoted story, the reporter said that Trump said "he" was grounding it, but the actual quote from Trump says "we" are grounding it... which could certainly mean "the US government".
Several media sources at the time also reported that it was grounded by EO (just do a search for "boeing executive order"; the stories are still there). But looking though the list of 2019 EOs, there was no such EO (which surprised me)
Anyway... the point is, pilots are suing Boeing.
Several media sources at the time also reported that it was grounded by EO (just do a search for "boeing executive order"; the stories are still there). But looking though the list of 2019 EOs, there was no such EO (which surprised me)
Anyway... the point is, pilots are suing Boeing.
Jun 23, 2019, 6:14 pm
#1826
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,219
Not an attorney.
Currently in Australia.
ABC is owned by the government (but note there was just a government raid). Think BBC in the UK as an equivalent.
I actually read my news from the RT, AlJezeera as well as other western and eastern news outlets. Most media has censorship and somewhere in there you will find the truth (you just need to have an open mind and understand the slant of each news report).
If I were driving a vehicle owned by my employer, think a bus driver, and there was a manufacturing default that was unknown to my employer then the person who put my life at risk is not my employer but the person who either knowingly or unknowingly sold my employer a defective product. People can state that the OEM did not believe it were a defective product but that is what the court case is to decide, but the employer certainly would not appear to be at fault and that case (against an employer who unknowingly purchased a defective product) would surely be thrown out of court for no basis.
If the OEM does not have a duty of care to the pilots to ensure they are manufacturing and selling a safe product for the pilots to fly then who does have that duty of care?
Currently in Australia.
ABC is owned by the government (but note there was just a government raid). Think BBC in the UK as an equivalent.
I actually read my news from the RT, AlJezeera as well as other western and eastern news outlets. Most media has censorship and somewhere in there you will find the truth (you just need to have an open mind and understand the slant of each news report).
If I were driving a vehicle owned by my employer, think a bus driver, and there was a manufacturing default that was unknown to my employer then the person who put my life at risk is not my employer but the person who either knowingly or unknowingly sold my employer a defective product. People can state that the OEM did not believe it were a defective product but that is what the court case is to decide, but the employer certainly would not appear to be at fault and that case (against an employer who unknowingly purchased a defective product) would surely be thrown out of court for no basis.
If the OEM does not have a duty of care to the pilots to ensure they are manufacturing and selling a safe product for the pilots to fly then who does have that duty of care?
Jun 23, 2019, 6:28 pm
#1827
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,694
Jun 24, 2019, 11:02 am
#1828
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,405
If I were driving a vehicle owned by my employer, think a bus driver, and there was a manufacturing default that was unknown to my employer then the person who put my life at risk is not my employer but the person who either knowingly or unknowingly sold my employer a defective product. People can state that the OEM did not believe it were a defective product but that is what the court case is to decide, but the employer certainly would not appear to be at fault and that case (against an employer who unknowingly purchased a defective product) would surely be thrown out of court for no basis.
After looking into it further, it seems likely that this passes the causation test, so even though the pilots did not have a direct relationship with Boeing, they may have standing after all. However, if they do, then so does every MAX passenger, so if this lawsuit is allowed, every American who’s flown a MAX should expect to find themselves as a member of a class action against Boeing in fairly short order.
Jun 24, 2019, 3:46 pm
#1829
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Now, even the AA CEO is saying that politics is playing a factor in the return of this plane.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/amer...s-737-max.html
(Admittedly, he is implying that the FAA is moving slower than they otherwise would in an attempt to make it appear that they are not biased)
The FAA is turning into a laughing stock.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/amer...s-737-max.html
(Admittedly, he is implying that the FAA is moving slower than they otherwise would in an attempt to make it appear that they are not biased)
The FAA is turning into a laughing stock.
Jun 24, 2019, 3:55 pm
#1830
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: 66,850
Now, even the AA CEO is saying that politics is playing a factor in the return of this plane.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/amer...s-737-max.html
(Admittedly, he is implying that the FAA is moving slower than they otherwise would in an attempt to make it appear that they are not biased)
The FAA is turning into a laughing stock.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/23/amer...s-737-max.html
(Admittedly, he is implying that the FAA is moving slower than they otherwise would in an attempt to make it appear that they are not biased)
The FAA is turning into a laughing stock.
I do not read the term "politics" to be referring to USA politicians putting pressure on the FAA.