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 12, 2019, 7:49 pm
#2011
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The aircraft was never originally designed to be fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. It is too low to the ground to accommodate these appropriately. The A320 (while also a pretty ancient design) does not suffer from this issue as it is two decades more modern (but by no means a modern airplane) and was built higher off the ground with expandability in mind. Boeing was able to fudge things and make it work for the 737 Classic and the NG. This process has failed with the engines required for the MAX and has resulted in catastrophic failure.
The 757 was not designed to be a transatlantic airplane.
The A330 was not designed to be a transpacific airplane.
The A321 was not designed to fly 10 hours.
Jul 12, 2019, 9:08 pm
#2012
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
So, Airbus engineers foresaw that high-bypass engines, like the ones designed for both the neo and the max, would exist in the late 1970s?
Again, there is nothing wrong with the physical design of the MAX, lower clearance or not. The MAX can accommodate larger engines and these larger engines have not been implicated as the cause for the accidents.
Again, there is nothing wrong with the physical design of the MAX, lower clearance or not. The MAX can accommodate larger engines and these larger engines have not been implicated as the cause for the accidents.
Hard to make that argument being that the entire reason for this thread and the loss of two aircraft centers around the fact that the flawed system designed to make the aircraft fly like the previous model was implement because of the way then engines were placed and they way the aircraft handled without computer augmentation.
Jul 13, 2019, 4:58 am
#2013
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
Hard to make that argument being that the entire reason for this thread and the loss of two aircraft centers around the fact that the flawed system designed to make the aircraft fly like the previous model was implement because of the way then engines were placed and they way the aircraft handled without computer augmentation.
Fix the software issue (which they are doing now under very close scrutiny), add in some training to reinforce issues, then everything will be fine.
Jul 13, 2019, 8:46 am
#2014
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,030
What makes you so confident that "everything will be fine"? This is uncharted territory.
Jul 13, 2019, 8:54 am
#2015
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
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again.
Jul 13, 2019, 8:56 am
#2016
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: In between IAD and DCA
Programs: UA Plat 1.1MM , Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,262
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....ncels-737-max/
Thus, United will cancel roughly according to this schedule:
- July – cancel 40-45 flights a day, or roughly 1,290 flights for the month
- August – cancel approximately 60 flights a day, or roughly 1,900 flights for the month
- September – cancel approximately 70 flights a day, or roughly 2,100 flights for the month
- October – cancel approximately 95 flights a day, or roughly 2,900 flights for the month
Jul 13, 2019, 9:05 am
#2017
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The analysis and testing done by the regulators is consistent with what is done during the initial development process and when changes are deployed in service.
And why was the software even necessary in the first place? Because of the flight characteristics caused by physical design of the airplane. The 737 is a light short-haul aircraft that is being stretched far beyond its capability.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again.
This situation should not have occurred, but that does not mean it is unrecoverable.
Jul 13, 2019, 9:24 am
#2018
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,134
Jul 13, 2019, 11:43 am
#2019
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
Not sure I understand exactly what you're asking.
I have no idea how often 737 pilots have had to use manual trim. The manual trim system is the same as what was used on the B707, B720, KC-135, B727, and all B737 aircraft. It's not commonly needed but that's a very long history so I'm sure there have been many instances where manual trim was used.
The problem that both accident crews had was that they didn't disable the electric trim until the stabilizer was at, or very near, the full nose-down position. That's a worst-case scenario and does not represent the forces that would be required for 'normal' manual trim operation. In one case, they were also over 150 knots faster than they should have been which compounded the problem by greatly increasing the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer and the nose-down pitching moment that the stabilizer produced.
The trim wheels have a lot of mechanical advantage. Many turns of the trim wheel for very small movements of the stabilizer. Kinda like a 10-speed bicycle pedalling in first gear. In other posts I have described the methods for manually turning the wheel from low to high required turning force.
Did that answer your question?
I have no idea how often 737 pilots have had to use manual trim. The manual trim system is the same as what was used on the B707, B720, KC-135, B727, and all B737 aircraft. It's not commonly needed but that's a very long history so I'm sure there have been many instances where manual trim was used.
The problem that both accident crews had was that they didn't disable the electric trim until the stabilizer was at, or very near, the full nose-down position. That's a worst-case scenario and does not represent the forces that would be required for 'normal' manual trim operation. In one case, they were also over 150 knots faster than they should have been which compounded the problem by greatly increasing the aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer and the nose-down pitching moment that the stabilizer produced.
The trim wheels have a lot of mechanical advantage. Many turns of the trim wheel for very small movements of the stabilizer. Kinda like a 10-speed bicycle pedalling in first gear. In other posts I have described the methods for manually turning the wheel from low to high required turning force.
Did that answer your question?
Jul 13, 2019, 11:49 am
#2020
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
A desire to avoid an airplane because of software, specifically pitch augmentation software, will limit a passenger to auto or rail service. Hence, I find this line of discussion to be absurd.
Jul 13, 2019, 12:28 pm
#2021
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
It may be a gross generalization if you interpret all as every airplane ever. It is absolutely accurate to say that every commercial airplane in service today has software. I’m aware of pitch augmentation software on most models.
A desire to avoid an airplane because of software, specifically pitch augmentation software, will limit a passenger to auto or rail service. Hence, I find this line of discussion to be absurd.
I have no problem with a plane needing software to fly, many do. Nor do I have an issue with Boeing's position that pilot is in control.
I do have an issue as of now with Boeing's design of the MCAS system to be a background system the pilot does not know about. The MCAS could not look at both sensors, because there was nothing they could ever do under than to trigger a runaway stab trim anyway. The system had to re-engage after a pilot trim move because it was invisible to the pilot. Had pilots been in the loop, the system could have been better designed.
I feel that the MAX will be a safe airplane, once Boeing makes the MCAS system a bit more transparent to the pilot.
Last edited by exwannabe; Jul 13, 2019 at 12:33 pm
Jul 13, 2019, 12:44 pm
#2022
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
I know it will be fine because the MAX is the most technically scrutinized aircraft ever and if the regulatory agencies unground the plane and then the same issues are present, then the very existence of those agencies and the political leadership of those agencies will be in doubt. Let alone Boeing... No one will want that on their resume. That's why after all this is said and done, the MAX will be the safest airplane in history.
And why was the software even necessary in the first place? Because of the flight characteristics caused by physical design of the airplane. The 737 is a light short-haul aircraft that is being stretched far beyond its capability.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again.
I also wouldn't be so quick to just assume everything will be fine after this. Manufacturing defects and other hardware issues continue to be found. Hence why the aircraft is being delayed further and further from flying again.
All aircraft have their own handling characteristics and all models have had those characteristics change between iterations. A 777-200ER does not handle like a 777-300ER and neither does a A320ceo handle like a A321neo.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 13, 2019 at 6:13 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
Jul 13, 2019, 1:14 pm
#2023
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,298
Jul 13, 2019, 1:58 pm
#2024
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
Jul 13, 2019, 3:19 pm
#2025
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