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 25, 2019, 9:58 am
#2146
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
No, it really doesn't. Modern history suggests that a clean-sheet aircraft would have been plagued with different problems, such as the battery issue on the 787.
Or, to put it another way: the part of the 737 MAX that failed was, unsurprisingly, the newly-designed part. If you have a clean-sheet aircraft, you have more newly-designed parts.
Or, to put it another way: the part of the 737 MAX that failed was, unsurprisingly, the newly-designed part. If you have a clean-sheet aircraft, you have more newly-designed parts.
Jul 25, 2019, 10:07 am
#2147
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
The plane will get fixed and be no different than any other aircraft flying commercially. Many of the problems people have with 737Max seem to be very arbitrary.
Jul 25, 2019, 10:07 am
#2148
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
When dealing with low-frequency events, you have to be extremely careful not to read too much into the data.
If the two crews of the crashed jets had been able to avert disaster, the MAX would still be flying, but it would be no more or less safe than it currently is.
Jul 25, 2019, 10:29 am
#2149
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
Jul 25, 2019, 11:48 am
#2150
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,291
Yes, A321neo has pitch up issues: https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/19/bj...itch-up-issue/
Ask Bombardier or Mitsubishi about the issues they've had...
Ask Bombardier or Mitsubishi about the issues they've had...
Jul 25, 2019, 11:58 am
#2151
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: EUG
Programs: UA Silver, AS
Posts: 115
IIRC this makes it actually fairly easy for pilots to transition between A319/A32x and A33x as well.
Jul 25, 2019, 12:06 pm
#2152
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,222
As I understand it, the design issue with the 737 is that it sits very low on the ground. This has resulted in modern engines (which have a hugely greater circumference than the ones of 40 years ago) sitting too low. They therefore are mounted forward of the wings, resulting in the imbalance. Would it not have been easier simply to change the landing gear so that the whole plane sat higher? I do recognise that pilots would have had to be trained to land the plane when it sits higher but that can't be too difficult.
Jul 25, 2019, 12:30 pm
#2153
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
As I understand it, the design issue with the 737 is that it sits very low on the ground. This has resulted in modern engines (which have a hugely greater circumference than the ones of 40 years ago) sitting too low. They therefore are mounted forward of the wings, resulting in the imbalance. Would it not have been easier simply to change the landing gear so that the whole plane sat higher? I do recognise that pilots would have had to be trained to land the plane when it sits higher but that can't be too difficult.
Jul 25, 2019, 12:34 pm
#2154
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
As I understand it, the design issue with the 737 is that it sits very low on the ground. This has resulted in modern engines (which have a hugely greater circumference than the ones of 40 years ago) sitting too low. They therefore are mounted forward of the wings, resulting in the imbalance. Would it not have been easier simply to change the landing gear so that the whole plane sat higher? I do recognise that pilots would have had to be trained to land the plane when it sits higher but that can't be too difficult.
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/up...X-nacelles.png
Jul 25, 2019, 12:54 pm
#2155
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 787 could have crashed and killed people. Same with the A380 in the Qantas accident as well or many other commercial aircraft accidents.
The plane will get fixed and be no different than any other aircraft flying commercially. Many of the problems people have with 737Max seem to be very arbitrary.
The plane will get fixed and be no different than any other aircraft flying commercially. Many of the problems people have with 737Max seem to be very arbitrary.
Jul 25, 2019, 1:05 pm
#2156
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,386
You're applying the lottery fallacy. This is absolutely the wrong way to look at the situation.
At the risk of repeating myself, if the Lion Air and ET crews had both successfully followed the procedure for a runaway stabilizer -- the way the previous Lion Air flight did -- the 737 MAX would still be flying, and would be no more or less safe than it is today.
When you're dealing with low-probability events, any outcome-based logic is likely to be misleading.
In fact, you can easily argue that the 787 issue was more serious (in abstract), because while there is a procedure in place for a failed MCAS, I don't know of any procedure for an uncontained electrical fire (to be fair: there may be one of which I'm unaware).
At the risk of repeating myself, if the Lion Air and ET crews had both successfully followed the procedure for a runaway stabilizer -- the way the previous Lion Air flight did -- the 737 MAX would still be flying, and would be no more or less safe than it is today.
When you're dealing with low-probability events, any outcome-based logic is likely to be misleading.
In fact, you can easily argue that the 787 issue was more serious (in abstract), because while there is a procedure in place for a failed MCAS, I don't know of any procedure for an uncontained electrical fire (to be fair: there may be one of which I'm unaware).
Jul 25, 2019, 1:13 pm
#2157
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,683
Is a plane model "safe" as long as it makes it to the ground, even if it scares the bejeezus out of the passengers every once in a while?
Last edited by l etoile; Jul 25, 2019 at 3:03 pm Reason: inappropriate/offensive comment removed
Jul 25, 2019, 1:15 pm
#2158
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,192
Airbus's design philosophy is that pilots assist the avionics instead of vice-versa (which USED to be the Boeing philosophy) so every Airbus has software equivalent to what MCAS is being accused of. MCAS was supposed to simply make the aircraft FEEL like previous generations of 737s when under manual control, matching the flight characteristics to what pilots certified on prior generations of 737s expected and would react instinctively to. So how many forks would you like to stick in your A{irbus}###?
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 26, 2019 at 12:03 pm Reason: restored Airbus comment
Jul 25, 2019, 1:16 pm
#2159
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
A plane model is safe when it is certified for commercial operations.
Last edited by l etoile; Jul 25, 2019 at 3:03 pm Reason: mod edit to quote
Jul 25, 2019, 1:28 pm
#2160
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
Clearly it is not...