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 14, 2019, 9:36 am
#1741
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
I don't understand why the FAA is "under pressure". This, again, implies that their priorities are skewed. They need to make a determination, and it takes as long as it takes. If the airlines and/or Boeing doesn't like it, too bad. The FAA is supposed to be an independent regulator. No one should be able to exert pressure on them.
Jun 14, 2019, 9:49 am
#1742
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
Uh, not a lot of people considering millions flew on the plane - and none in the US. It can't be a coincidence in my opinion the crashes were from 3rd world countries.
They should've trained the pilots better and especially in Ethiopia had more experience. I'm not sure why 350 seems like a lot.
They should've trained the pilots better and especially in Ethiopia had more experience. I'm not sure why 350 seems like a lot.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 2019 at 11:33 am Reason: OT/ snarky comment removed
Jun 14, 2019, 9:59 am
#1743
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,423
"Under pressure" doesn't necessarily mean "under pressure to do it quickly;" it could be "under pressure to do a thorough job." I'd like to see the whole quote, in context, rather than two separate, partial quotes.
Regardless, if somebody is exerting pressure on the FAA to do things quickly, then, I agree, the priorities are skewed -- not the FAA's, but those of the entity applying pressure.
Jun 14, 2019, 10:08 am
#1744
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I don’t think anyone truly disputes that deaths are not a tragedy. The difficult issue is how you respond and address the risks that caused the deaths. The reality is that it is not economically feasible to remove the risk of air travel or any other activity. You should mitigate to the greatest extent possible, but at some point there’s a difficult decision about whether the additional investment is justified.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 2019 at 11:42 am Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
Jun 14, 2019, 10:15 am
#1745
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
So, while unfortunate, in the big picture, 350 from a couple of airline accidents does not seem like a lot to me considering these accidents happened via 3rd world airlines with millions of passengers having no issues.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 2019 at 11:44 am Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
Jun 14, 2019, 10:20 am
#1746
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
The problem is that the Max has regressed to a fatality rate that is not considered acceptable by current standards -- that is, it is far worse than that of other planes currently in service.
Jun 14, 2019, 10:21 am
#1747
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,709
Over 2,500 people per day die from Malaria - that is preventable, where is the uproar? Think about it, an average of over 2,500 people will die each and every day from something that is curable and preventable.
So, while unfortunate, in the big picture, 350 from a couple of airline accidents does not seem like a lot to me considering these accidents happened via 3rd world airlines with millions of passengers having no issues.
So, while unfortunate, in the big picture, 350 from a couple of airline accidents does not seem like a lot to me considering these accidents happened via 3rd world airlines with millions of passengers having no issues.
In the case of air travel, it's precisely because it's so incredibly safe that 350 deaths, in two accidents involving the same model plane, both new, five months apart, for the same reason, is so alarming.
Jun 14, 2019, 10:49 am
#1748
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
It is clear all relevant parties saw a need to install improvements on the MAX to improve safety. Are you suggesting other action, such as cancelling the program, is required?
Jun 14, 2019, 11:09 am
#1749
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 guess the reality is the aircraft is still a relic of the 1960s so the accident rate is on par with the era it was designed in.
Jun 14, 2019, 11:23 am
#1751
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
I don't understand why the FAA is "under pressure". This, again, implies that their priorities are skewed. They need to make a determination, and it takes as long as it takes. If the airlines and/or Boeing doesn't like it, too bad. The FAA is supposed to be an independent regulator. No one should be able to exert pressure on them.
I don’t think anyone truly disputes that deaths are not a tragedy. The difficult issue is how you respond and address the risks that caused the deaths. The reality is that it is not economically feasible to remove the risk of air travel or any other activity. You should mitigate to the greatest extent possible, but at some point there’s a difficult decision about whether the additional investment is justified.
(quoted excerpts from the article below)
After its second fatal crash in less than five months, nearly every aviation authority around the world with oversight of the plane, grounded the Boeing 737 Max 8. No other commercial aircraft has been implicated in as many fatalities so rapidly since 1966 compared to a list of 46 other aircraft flown in commercial fleets compiled by DVB Bank (pdf), according to a Quartz analysis of Aviation Safety Network data.
For our analysis, we omitted terrorism, military aircraft, and deaths of bystanders (those killed on the ground as a result of the crash). To be sure, the number of accidents attributed to an aircraft model is often driven by the popularity of that plane, the routes it flies, and how many people fit onboard. For these reasons, the most popular planes are usually the ones with the most fatal accidents.
The Boeing 737 Max 8, which made its first flight in 2016, is a popular plane.
Compared to the planes involved in accidents with the most fatalities since 1966, the 737 Max 8 has had more fatalities in its first years in service than any of the other.
Jun 14, 2019, 11:23 am
#1752
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,125
Over 2,500 people per day die from Malaria - that is preventable, where is the uproar? Think about it, an average of over 2,500 people will die each and every day from something that is curable and preventable.
So, while unfortunate, in the big picture, 350 from a couple of airline accidents does not seem like a lot to me considering these accidents happened via 3rd world airlines with millions of passengers having no issues.
So, while unfortunate, in the big picture, 350 from a couple of airline accidents does not seem like a lot to me considering these accidents happened via 3rd world airlines with millions of passengers having no issues.
Jun 14, 2019, 11:29 am
#1753
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,197
At 380 knots, the aerodynamic forces acting on the tail portion of an aircraft (stabilizers and elevators) are enormous, especially at lower altitudes where the air is denser—the aircraft was between 9000 feet and 12,000 feet pressure altitude. The captain’s indications were 20-25 knots lower than the right-side due to faulty AOA signals.In fact, to the pilots, it would seem like the manual trim wheel was ineffective. This is verified in the exchange between the captain and the first officer (FO) after the stabilizer trim switches were moved to cutout: “At 05:41:46 [one minute and thirty seconds after stabilizer trim cutout], the Captain asked the First Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually. The Captain told him to try. At 05:41:54 [eight seconds later], the First-Officer replied that it is not working.
”Two major concerns with this exchange
First, was the first officer admitting that he tried to use the electric trim when it was disabled by the stabilizer trim switch being moved to cutout. He replied that “the trim was not working” when asked by the captain “if the trim was functional.” More confusing, he followed the answer with a question, whether he could “could try it manually.” What was the first officer doing for one minute and thirty seconds if he made it seem like he hadn’t used the manual trim? Was he (erroneously) using an ineffective electric trim switch on the control yoke? This trim would have been disabled with the stabilizer trim switches (STAB TRIM CUTOUT) in the off positions.
Second, did he waste one minute and thirty seconds not correcting the stabilizer nose-down position? Why was he not aggressively completing the rest of the runaway trim checklist by grasping the manual trim wheel and correcting the stabilizer? Or did he try to use it and, for some reason, when the captain asked, he made it seem like it hadn’t? Also, while this confusion was occurring, the airspeed had increased by almost 50 knots. Instead of correcting the problem, the pilots were making it worse.
Apparently, the captain didn’t realize that the first officer moved the manual trim wheel in the wrong direction, further aggravating the nose-down position and putting even more pressure on the control column. That mistake is most likely why they stopped using the manual trim wheel and failed to finish the runaway emergency checklist. The appearance of nothing working probably drove them to turn the stabilizer trim cutout switches back on—a desperate attempt to move the stabilizer nose-up but one that would assure their fate.
”Two major concerns with this exchange
First, was the first officer admitting that he tried to use the electric trim when it was disabled by the stabilizer trim switch being moved to cutout. He replied that “the trim was not working” when asked by the captain “if the trim was functional.” More confusing, he followed the answer with a question, whether he could “could try it manually.” What was the first officer doing for one minute and thirty seconds if he made it seem like he hadn’t used the manual trim? Was he (erroneously) using an ineffective electric trim switch on the control yoke? This trim would have been disabled with the stabilizer trim switches (STAB TRIM CUTOUT) in the off positions.
Second, did he waste one minute and thirty seconds not correcting the stabilizer nose-down position? Why was he not aggressively completing the rest of the runaway trim checklist by grasping the manual trim wheel and correcting the stabilizer? Or did he try to use it and, for some reason, when the captain asked, he made it seem like it hadn’t? Also, while this confusion was occurring, the airspeed had increased by almost 50 knots. Instead of correcting the problem, the pilots were making it worse.
Apparently, the captain didn’t realize that the first officer moved the manual trim wheel in the wrong direction, further aggravating the nose-down position and putting even more pressure on the control column. That mistake is most likely why they stopped using the manual trim wheel and failed to finish the runaway emergency checklist. The appearance of nothing working probably drove them to turn the stabilizer trim cutout switches back on—a desperate attempt to move the stabilizer nose-up but one that would assure their fate.
Last edited by ExplorerWannabe; Jun 14, 2019 at 11:37 am
Jun 14, 2019, 12:00 pm
#1754
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
Jun 14, 2019, 12:06 pm
#1755
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
The A320 was developed in the late 1970s. It has changed as much as the 737.