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
Jul 11, 2019, 6:31 pm
#1981
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
The pilots were almost certainly speaking their minds in what they thought was a private setting. The decision to leak the audio was likely motivated by (as you say) politics, posturing, and union negotiations, but the actual content of the audio is almost certainly honest.
And, again, there was Capt. Sullenberger's testimony in front of Congress.
Some here have implied that because we have one expert posting here, we should just take his opinion as gospel. My point is that that doesn't really make sense, because we have the exact opposite opinion from others who have the same level of expertise. The only thing that we can really conclude is that the experts disagree.
Last edited by VegasGambler; Jul 11, 2019 at 7:07 pm
Jul 11, 2019, 6:39 pm
#1982
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
And...if this was truly simply a matter of providing training or re-training to pilots on how to recover from a runaway stabilizer trim...then why is the plane still grounded? Why not simply roll that training out and be back in the air quickly, without all the attendant cost accruing now?
Jul 11, 2019, 8:07 pm
#1984
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
Some here have implied that because we have one expert posting here, we should just take his opinion as gospel. My point is that that doesn't really make sense, because we have the exact opposite opinion from others who have the same level of expertise. The only thing that we can really conclude is that the experts disagree.
There's also a difference between saying that Boeing should have provided this information (I agree) and that they needed to provide this information in order to allow for safe operation of the plane (I disagree). Every system should be documented, but that doesn't mean that every pilot should be required to memorize the minute details. If there were a new procedure due to the MCAS, then certainly they'd need training for that. There wasn't.
And...if this was truly simply a matter of providing training or re-training to pilots on how to recover from a runaway stabilizer trim...then why is the plane still grounded? Why not simply roll that training out and be back in the air quickly, without all the attendant cost accruing now?
This isn't particularly complicated:
1 - It is possible to recover from a stabilizer failure
2 - If the stabilizer on the MAX is substantially more likely to fail than the stabilizer on the NG, it is appropriate to address that tendency.
Both of these statements can be true simultaneously.
There is no such thing as a perfectly safe plane. A stabilizer could fail on a 737 NG tonight, and it could end up precipitating a crash, because airplanes are imperfect, and pilots are human. It just makes sense -- for everyone involved -- to improve the MAX so that it will enter an emergency state less frequently.
Jul 11, 2019, 8:33 pm
#1985
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
And...if this was truly simply a matter of providing training or re-training to pilots on how to recover from a runaway stabilizer trim...then why is the plane still grounded? Why not simply roll that training out and be back in the air quickly, without all the attendant cost accruing now?
A core part of modern aviation is continuous improvement based on exhausting analysis of robust data sets. While I - and many others - are confident the MAX could continue to be operated safely, regulators identified items that needed to be changed to improve safety. Because of the initial hysteria, it would be imprudent to return the airplane to service until these items are completed, even if the aircraft could be operated safely.
Jul 11, 2019, 8:36 pm
#1986
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
I know that some posters believe the plane is inherently unstable because of the position of the engines, so they are saying "ground the plane forever because it's an awful design. " That's significantly different than your posit.
Because of the initial hysteria,
it would be imprudent to return the airplane to service until these items are completed, even if the aircraft could be operated safely.
https://samchui.com/2019/07/10/easa-...topilot-fault/
The five requirements the European Aviation Safety Agency have listed so far are as follows:
- Reduce the difficulty manually turning the trim wheel
- Address the unreliability of Angle of Attack sensors
- Address the training situation
- Investigate software issues with a lagging microprocessor
- < the autopilot failing to disengage in certain emergencies>
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 12, 2019 at 4:51 pm Reason: see Moderator note
Jul 11, 2019, 8:42 pm
#1987
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 794
It's already come through. The audio was leaked. The pilots were apparently unaware that they were being recorded. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-...es-2019-05-14/ This is old news.
The pilots were almost certainly speaking their minds in what they thought was a private setting. The decision to leak the audio was likely motivated by (as you say) politics, posturing, and union negotiations, but the actual content of the audio is almost certainly honest.
And, again, there was Capt. Sullenberger's testimony in front of Congress.
Some here have implied that because we have one expert posting here, we should just take his opinion as gospel. My point is that that doesn't really make sense, because we have the exact opposite opinion from others who have the same level of expertise. The only thing that we can really conclude is that the experts disagree.
The pilots were almost certainly speaking their minds in what they thought was a private setting. The decision to leak the audio was likely motivated by (as you say) politics, posturing, and union negotiations, but the actual content of the audio is almost certainly honest.
And, again, there was Capt. Sullenberger's testimony in front of Congress.
Some here have implied that because we have one expert posting here, we should just take his opinion as gospel. My point is that that doesn't really make sense, because we have the exact opposite opinion from others who have the same level of expertise. The only thing that we can really conclude is that the experts disagree.
The initial confrontation between APA and AAL management about the MAX prior to the ET accident is why that particular pilot group is so vocal. Not only were they misled by Boeing, (as were all B737 Pilots), it was their own company leadership that was (allegedly) less than supportive. It is my understanding that they knew there was an issue but concerns were quickly dismissed. These guys are pissed, feel betrayed, and the repercussions are working the way up the chain through Boeing and now to Congress via Sully; a great man but still from the family (via USAPA). He is obviously an intelligent individual and fully capable of handling himself, but the pre-testimony brief and fact prep before Congress was definitely not done by ALPA, lets be honest.
Sully is not going to stand in front of Congress and place blame solely on third world pilots with little flight time, that's not going to happen. However, I'm afraid to say that a lack of experience will be a contributing factor in each of these accidents. The botched recovery procedures for Runaway Trim at uncontrollable speeds unfortunately paint the picture of a complete lack of situational awareness.
Capt. Sullenberger's narrative was that Boeing is culpable and they deserve to be accountable for these accidents. That's the message he delivered, one that lines up nearly identical with the APA public campaign. I personally thought he did a great job.
Last edited by clubord; Jul 12, 2019 at 1:22 am
Jul 11, 2019, 8:58 pm
#1988
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Apparently at least the Europeans are discovering more "items to complete."
https://samchui.com/2019/07/10/easa-...topilot-fault/
https://samchui.com/2019/07/10/easa-...topilot-fault/
Past and present engineers within the aviation industry have flagged the aircraft as unsafe to fly because it is not a software problem, it is a structural problem that required the MCAS system in the first place.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along, since the beginning. The problem is not that MCAS sucks, the problem is that the plane needs MCAS. Fixing MCAS does not fix the problem.
Jul 11, 2019, 10:02 pm
#1989
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
From that article:
Past and present engineers within the aviation industry have flagged the aircraft as unsafe to fly because it is not a software problem, it is a structural problem that required the MCAS system in the first place.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along, since the beginning. The problem is not that MCAS sucks, the problem is that the plane needs MCAS. Fixing MCAS does not fix the problem.
Past and present engineers within the aviation industry have flagged the aircraft as unsafe to fly because it is not a software problem, it is a structural problem that required the MCAS system in the first place.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along, since the beginning. The problem is not that MCAS sucks, the problem is that the plane needs MCAS. Fixing MCAS does not fix the problem.
Jul 11, 2019, 10:38 pm
#1990
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
And...if this was truly simply a matter of providing training or re-training to pilots on how to recover from a runaway stabilizer trim...then why is the plane still grounded? Why not simply roll that training out and be back in the air quickly, without all the attendant cost accruing now?
Jul 12, 2019, 5:53 am
#1991
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
No the MAX remains grounded because "politics" along with "public relations" broke Boeing's grip over the FAA. The FAA is now doing the type of testing of the revised MCAS system that was not done before MCAS was rolled out. As part of that testing, other safety issues were identified, which Boeing is now required to fix. The EU evidently also identified issues with the Autopilot that they want fixed. See generally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.b1ef697af252
The MAX is grounded because regulators are now looking carefully at Boeing's handiwork, and not liking what they are finding. I am not suggesting that if you looked carefully at an Airbus or any other jet you might not have similar issues crop up, but real issues, not "politics" have kept the MAX grounded.
The entire MAX program was a rushed response to the neo, with Boeing responding to AAL's purchase of the A320/321 and threat to place another big order unless Boeing got off the pot. Yet, the situation was created by Boeings's failure to come up with a new narrow body, which was the result of an unwillingness to invest and the lack of engineering resources with the 787 issues. Boeing is now paying a heavy price for its now 15 year strategy of trying to maximize profits by offshoring and reducing investment.
The MAX is grounded because regulators are now looking carefully at Boeing's handiwork, and not liking what they are finding. I am not suggesting that if you looked carefully at an Airbus or any other jet you might not have similar issues crop up, but real issues, not "politics" have kept the MAX grounded.
The entire MAX program was a rushed response to the neo, with Boeing responding to AAL's purchase of the A320/321 and threat to place another big order unless Boeing got off the pot. Yet, the situation was created by Boeings's failure to come up with a new narrow body, which was the result of an unwillingness to invest and the lack of engineering resources with the 787 issues. Boeing is now paying a heavy price for its now 15 year strategy of trying to maximize profits by offshoring and reducing investment.
Jul 12, 2019, 6:16 am
#1992
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 19
Norwegian Air boss quits as airline reels from 737 Max groundings ...
Norwegian Air’s longstanding chief executive Bjorn Kjos has quit the top job, amid warnings the struggling carrier’s full-year results will take a hit from the Boeing 737 Max grounding.
Norwegian Air’s longstanding chief executive Bjorn Kjos has quit the top job, amid warnings the struggling carrier’s full-year results will take a hit from the Boeing 737 Max grounding.
Jul 12, 2019, 7:07 am
#1993
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
Jul 12, 2019, 7:24 am
#1994
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
Jul 12, 2019, 7:37 am
#1995
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
There is critical loss of nuance in this discussion. Until there’s are accident reports and an understanding whether any deficiencies in design were the result of Boeing’s negligence, placing blame is hysteria.
Although it is a tragedy that people died, we have to move on.