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 8, 2019, 11:10 am
#1921
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
"Statistically speaking" is a never-ending series of rabbit holes that eventually gets us nowhere. As humans, we don't make Spock-like calculations every tenth of a second to determine our next steps. We use memories, and suspicions, and gut feelings, and emotions, interspersed in an organic matrix with statistics and probabilities.
You have every right to get onto a MAX as soon as it's certified. And I have every right to avoid the plane until it proves its ability to not kill people. Which, for me, is probably a year or so.
Jul 8, 2019, 11:33 am
#1922
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
And I should take stairs vs. the escalators at all airports, "statistically speaking."
"Statistically speaking" is a never-ending series of rabbit holes that eventually gets us nowhere. As humans, we don't make Spock-like calculations every tenth of a second to determine our next steps. We use memories, and suspicions, and gut feelings, and emotions, interspersed in an organic matrix with statistics and probabilities.
You have every right to get onto a MAX as soon as it's certified. And I have every right to avoid the plane until it proves its ability to not kill people. Which, for me, is probably a year or so.
"Statistically speaking" is a never-ending series of rabbit holes that eventually gets us nowhere. As humans, we don't make Spock-like calculations every tenth of a second to determine our next steps. We use memories, and suspicions, and gut feelings, and emotions, interspersed in an organic matrix with statistics and probabilities.
You have every right to get onto a MAX as soon as it's certified. And I have every right to avoid the plane until it proves its ability to not kill people. Which, for me, is probably a year or so.
Jul 8, 2019, 12:20 pm
#1923
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: BOS
Programs: 1MM, UA 1k
Posts: 529
I’m fascinated by the rationale that will prevent boarding a model of aircraft due to perceived lack of flight worthiness but be soothed by 1 year of data. I can’t connect those dots.
Jul 8, 2019, 12:32 pm
#1924
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
A lot of this discussion hasn’t been based in reality and logic. I don’t expect people’s emotional reactions to connect any dots when none were present to begin with.
Jul 8, 2019, 12:43 pm
#1925
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
A year of these things in service will certainly not convince me to fly on one of them. Perhaps a decade. Even then, I avoid 737s where possible simply because of the poor passenger experience offered compared to a 757/MD-80/Airbus/E-Jet.
Jul 8, 2019, 1:02 pm
#1926
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,662
I've never agreed with the setup in a V-35 Bonanza for example, but it's approved. The idea of a yoke that takes seconds to move from one side to the other is beyond stupid, yet it was approved back in the day and still approved. Just because the FAA gave approval doesn't mean that I would. The DC-3 was an incredible aircraft back in the day, but would it meet current standards? Probably not despite how well built it is. The 737 design is getting long in the tooth, and Boeing is milking that for all it's worth. I don't fault them for choosing the MAX as its likely cheaper than the 320 series, if it isn't I can't think of any valid reason why any airline would choose it. The problem is we have only 2 major manufacturers in this category, and switching would be a problem.
So despite what I said, I will fly the MAX as I trust UA pilots and my life insurance is current, however, what a nightmare this must be for airlines (in this case UA), they have not only 14 grounded airplanes, but the ones that should have been delivered. Planning on fleet retirements with said MAX replacements has to be a headache I would never want.
Last edited by COSPILOT; Jul 8, 2019 at 1:11 pm
Jul 8, 2019, 1:12 pm
#1927
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
If the likelihood of a MAX crashing was only double that of every other plane, it's unlikely that anyone would have noticed.
Jul 8, 2019, 1:30 pm
#1928
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 19
There’s no actual evidence of any bias. Just a lot of Internet speculation without any solid reasoning.
That aside, my answer is “the public,” not “the American public.” People are people, and there are more important things in their lives than who makes the airplane they’re flying. It’s just not going to matter.
(FYI: considering that takeoff and landing are, by far, the most dangerous parts of any flight, someone who adds a connection to avoid the MAX is likely at greater risk of injury than someone who just flies the MAX).
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 8, 2019 at 2:04 pm Reason: Unneeded personal comments removed
Jul 8, 2019, 1:45 pm
#1929
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
{There is a} difference between those and a single new aircraft type that crashed for the exact same reason just five months apart, and which is currently grounded worldwide
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 8, 2019 at 2:05 pm Reason: Discuss the issue, not the poster(s)
Jul 8, 2019, 1:55 pm
#1930
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Setting aside that we don’t actually know why the two MAX crashes, there have been other models of airplanes that have crashed for the same reason - or just as critically - almost crashed. People still fly these airplanes today, some of which may have less than the desired fix implemented.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 8, 2019 at 11:29 pm Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit; removed snarky response
Jul 8, 2019, 1:59 pm
#1931
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
Two DC-10s crashed less than two years apart, both from blowing out their cargo bay doors. Is that different than the MAX crashes?
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 8, 2019 at 2:09 pm Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edits
Jul 8, 2019, 2:09 pm
#1932
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: ORD | LGA | 2E
Programs: UA GS 1.6MM UC | AA CK 0.7MM AC | Bonvoy Ambassador | Hyatt Globalist | Hertz PC
Posts: 1,054
As well as the financial problems of cancellation, there are huge logistical ones. The waiting list for the 320 neo family is getting longer and longer - if an airline were to cancel its 737MAX order, it won't be seeing the replacement 320 neos any time soon. Today's cancellation from Flyadeal is because its parent airline has spare 320 neos from another order. With air traffic continuing to grow, I very much doubt that cancellations will be a feature. Of course, that might change if a big recession hits.
I think this is really underappreciated here. From the day of the second crash I have felt this was going to be a much more serious issue for $BA than their initial responses seemed to assume. Conversely, I have also believed that the supply chain of this consolidated industry doesn't allow for any actual flexibility. Unless it becomes clear that the MAX won't be up in the air for years I just don't think the big commercial airlines can do anything to actually change the makeup of their delivery pipeline. It is going to be really painful for those airlines if that type of duration becomes a reality. $BA can't really stop making the MAX and customers that ordered them can't really not take them and put them into service if/when they are cleared to fly.
I'm trying to avoid the more emotional back-and-forth in this thread, but that basic inflexibility of the supply chain is absolutely going to matter more than public perception of the safety of the MAX again... if/when it is cleared to fly.
Jul 8, 2019, 2:12 pm
#1933
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,310
Jul 8, 2019, 2:16 pm
#1934
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.997MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,859
The discussion is turning overly personal, once again.
Remember "Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)"
Each of us has our own personal opinions and feelings about future travel on the MAX. Remember these are opinions, not facts, and it would be expected for there to be a wide range of such opinions.
Stating a person is foolish, unwise to hold an opinion does not lead to productive, collegial, ....or useful discussion. You can state your opinion, we can disagree, but belittling someone is not going to be permitted.
Discussion can happen without getting personal.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Remember "Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)"
Each of us has our own personal opinions and feelings about future travel on the MAX. Remember these are opinions, not facts, and it would be expected for there to be a wide range of such opinions.
If you have a difference of opinion with another member, challenge the idea — NOT the person. Getting personal with another member is not allowed. Personal attacks, insults, baiting and flaming will not be tolerated.
Discussion can happen without getting personal.
WineCountryUA
UA coModerator
Jul 8, 2019, 2:23 pm
#1935
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
The real point is we can reasonably expect the 737 MAX series to be a far safer aircraft when it goes back into service than the DC-10 ever was (when routinely used for passenger service). People flew DC-10s day-in and day-out back then so it stands to reason they'll fly the MAX again whenever that day comes.