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, 2:27 pm
#1936
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,285
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.
Jul 8, 2019, 2:57 pm
#1937
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,107
That very true about the DC-10 though I'm sure it was influenced by the fact it continued to have several other issues not related to the cargo doors.
Jul 8, 2019, 3:11 pm
#1938
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
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.
Jul 8, 2019, 3:25 pm
#1939
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
I also see parallels between the MAX and the MD11, which was a redesign of the DC10 that also had stability challenges, although under different circumstances. There were two MD11 crashes within two years that arose from not being able to manage the aircraft's pitch on landing.
Jul 8, 2019, 3:52 pm
#1940
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,678
Jul 8, 2019, 4:30 pm
#1941
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 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.
Jul 8, 2019, 8:08 pm
#1942
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,370
The issue with the MAX is not that the MCAS was somehow some big fraudulent, secret device, or even that it was a bad idea; the issue is that the MAX appears (again, small sample size) to have a higher probability to enter an emergency state than the NG did. This is a bad thing, and should be corrected (and is being corrected), but ultimately if the pilots had followed the appropriate emergency procedure, the planes could have been saved. While the investigations are still underway, the likelihood remains that the final reports are going to split the responsibility between the pilots and Boeing (and, in LionAir’s case, possibly bad maintenance procedures).
If Boeing is so “unlawful,” and so untrustworthy, why on earth would you want them to make a new plane?
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 9, 2019 at 6:57 pm Reason: Removed personal comments
Jul 8, 2019, 8:08 pm
#1943
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,107
I fully agree and that's why the 737 MAX series, once cleared by the FAA, will be a far safer aircraft than the DC-10 (which, BTW, was used commercially much more recently than 40 years ago). As I said earlier, people flew this "unsafe" DC-10 quite a bit and, despite it's poor reputation, it was obsolescence and not the public's refusal to fly it that ultimately put it out of service.
Jul 8, 2019, 9:13 pm
#1944
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I also see parallels between the MAX and the MD11, which was a redesign of the DC10 that also had stability challenges, although under different circumstances. There were two MD11 crashes within two years that arose from not being able to manage the aircraft's pitch on landing.
The DC10 and MD11 were obsoleted by their economics, not the safety record. Both were ultimately safe airplanes, just like the MAX will be.
Jul 8, 2019, 9:30 pm
#1945
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
I agree that it wasn't safety that put an end to either the DC10 or MD11 (and I've flown on both aircraft quite comfortably after their various safety crises). But there is more in the parallel experience of the MD11 and the MAX that is worth considering. The MD11 was redesigned with a smaller tail than the DC10, which reduced the plane's stability, in certain circumstances. Then, McDonnell-Douglas added some software to the flight management system that was supposed to make the MD11 fly like the DC10, but it didn't work quite as advertised. FedEx wound up reprogramming the MD11's flight management software for their subfleet of MD11s to address the shortcoming of the factory installed software from MD.
Jul 9, 2019, 6:56 am
#1946
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,678
I believe this is now the longest period of time an American-built plane has been grounded worldwide in history. Longer than the 787.
Jul 9, 2019, 6:19 pm
#1947
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 19
The MAX will be the most scrutinized aircraft in history, and there’s not nearly enough data available to know the actual failure rate of the plane. That’s the problem, statistically, with low-frequency events. I stand by what I said.
What “unlawful” and “utterly wrong” practice, exactly?
For the Nth time, there was absolutely no reason to “train” the pilots on a system that, if it failed, would not result in any different behavior than any other runaway stabilizer event. Latching onto that as some sort of “proof” of bad behavior by Boeing belies a misunderstanding of the situation. What would this training consist of? “By the way, there’s a new reason that the horizontal stabilizer might fail, so if the plane starts to point itself at the ground unexpectedly, do exactly what you would have done any other time the plane started to point itself at the ground unexpectedly?” Remember, the Ethiopian pilots knew about the MCAS, but the preliminary indications are that they did not follow the appropriate procedure anyway. (If a pilot isn’t going to follow the procedure, no amount of training would have made a difference).
The issue with the MAX is not that the MCAS was somehow some big fraudulent, secret device, or even that it was a bad idea; the issue is that the MAX appears (again, small sample size) to have a higher probability to enter an emergency state than the NG did. This is a bad thing, and should be corrected (and is being corrected), but ultimately if the pilots had followed the appropriate emergency procedure, the planes could have been saved. While the investigations are still underway, the likelihood remains that the final reports are going to split the responsibility between the pilots and Boeing (and, in LionAir’s case, possibly bad maintenance procedures).
I mean, as long as we’re speculating about completely unrelated systems, with absolutely no basis in fact, what if they made the fuselage out of recycled banana peels to save money?
If Boeing is so “unlawful,” and so untrustworthy, why on earth would you want them to make a new plane?
Do I believe that there was no reason to train pilot regarding MCAS, or do I trust the words of Captain Denis Tajer, AA pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association who said they need! The training would cost hundred's of peoples lives! Why did this Boeing needed MCAS in first place? How do you correct a design flaw? American Airlines pilot Captain Denis Tajer - pilots didn't have instructions in their manual regarding MCAS, didn't know what to do, keep in mind the whole action take place at only 2000ft.
You describe it like is walk in the park, pilots didn't need additional training, MAX has some probability to enter emergency state etc., why we have the MAX grounded in the whole world if its not that serious?
The likelihood is to be unfold with the investigation still on, law suits being filed, orders of MAX cancelled and more and more requirements from government agencies to Boeing.
Even the trust into FAA is shaken and regulator around the globe will conduct their own investigation and have list with requirements for Boeing.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency sent a list of five changes to be made for the Boeing 737 MAX to fly again in the European skies. While most of the corrections align with FAA’s recommendations, one of them related to the autopilot might have never been raised before.
This new detail illustrates how operators from around the world may have to wait even longer than their U.S. counterparts, as the main regulators (European Union Aviation Safety Agency, Transport Canada…) have all announced their decisions to conduct individual reviews of the Boeing 737 MAX update. An individual regulator may come up with a specific requirements that the manufacturer will have to fulfill if it wants its plane to operate again globally.
The situation could not only damage Boeing’s relationship with the 737 MAX operators, but also the credibility of the FAA. The latter has repeatedly called for a resumption of the former situation of reciprocity where its judgment would be taken at face value by other regulators. "If [the other regulators] could lift the ban shortly after us, I think it would be good for the public's trust,” said Dan Elwell, acting chief of the FAA during a meeting between the main civil aviation regulators on May 23, 2019.
But their call remains unanswered, and the EASA is now proceeding with its own investigation. A month ago, during the International Aviation Safety Conference in Cologne, EASA Director Patrick Ky reportedly said that the agency was considering additional flight simulator training for 737 MAX pilots, as well as possible design changes, as a requirement for the aircraft to operate again in the European airspace.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.ch...37-max-problem
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 9, 2019 at 6:59 pm Reason: Overly personal comments removed; Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
Jul 9, 2019, 7:51 pm
#1948
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
Re the "unlawful" comment... right now the DOJ is conducting two separate criminal investigations into Boeing, surrounding their actions during the certification processes for the MAX and the 787. So, I guess, we will find out if they were guilty of criminal conduct when the investigations are done.
Jul 9, 2019, 9:14 pm
#1949
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
A few incorrect claims posted:
1. The certification process and authority given to Boeing was no different than prior Boeing aircraft, or Airbus aircraft for that matter. Certification occurs at every step of the process and you need to have imbedded engineers with intimate knowledge.
2. There are not two criminal investigations. There were two subpoenas.
1. The certification process and authority given to Boeing was no different than prior Boeing aircraft, or Airbus aircraft for that matter. Certification occurs at every step of the process and you need to have imbedded engineers with intimate knowledge.
2. There are not two criminal investigations. There were two subpoenas.
Jul 9, 2019, 9:29 pm
#1950
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 10,904
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...liner-records/
DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the certification and design of the 737 MAX after two deadly crashes of that jetliner.
DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the certification and design of the 737 MAX after two deadly crashes of that jetliner.