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
Oct 19, 2019, 9:59 am
#2311
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
That's what I mean by a rebuild - new software, not just a patch, proper software written stateside, not by foreign contractors, and with the FAA certification people monitoring every iteration and test onsite, over everyone's shoulder. If additional sensors are needed, they go in, if not, it's just new software - and no pushing through certification, but a lengthly process with frequent checks and balances by outside officials not connected with Boeing given all the eyes not just on Boeing, but on the FAA for mishandling this process from the beginning.
Oct 19, 2019, 10:37 am
#2312
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,471
I by no means am an expert or have any insight beyond the little I read, but my arm-chair take on the situation is Boeing opted for what they perceived at the time to be an optimal strategy to edge out the next-gen A320 series.
A large part of this rested on not requiring expensive pilot re-certifition and extracting more efficiency from the 737 platform by using a higher bypass engine. However, achieving the required gains from a new engine required a larger engine. Due to the ground-to-wing clearance of the 737s, or lack thereof, Boeing mounted the engine further forward on/in-front of the wing to accommodate the increased diameter of the new engine. This in turn changed the handling characteristics of the MAX which jeopardized Boeing's promise pilots would NOT need to be re-certified.
This lead Boeing to develop the MCAS system to "simulate" the handling of a 737NG and avoided, or so they believed, needing to re-certifiy pilots.
I always know the winning lottery numbers...problem is I only know them about a day too late.
In hindsight, my guess is "yes", it would have been cheaper for all involved.
What's troubling to me is it appears Boeing failed to place the safety of their ultimate customers - you and me - first through willful ignorance, if not outright deception, and in doing so violated the public's trust (or at least IMHO - still following the story to see what further develops).
A large part of this rested on not requiring expensive pilot re-certifition and extracting more efficiency from the 737 platform by using a higher bypass engine. However, achieving the required gains from a new engine required a larger engine. Due to the ground-to-wing clearance of the 737s, or lack thereof, Boeing mounted the engine further forward on/in-front of the wing to accommodate the increased diameter of the new engine. This in turn changed the handling characteristics of the MAX which jeopardized Boeing's promise pilots would NOT need to be re-certified.
This lead Boeing to develop the MCAS system to "simulate" the handling of a 737NG and avoided, or so they believed, needing to re-certifiy pilots.
I always know the winning lottery numbers...problem is I only know them about a day too late.
In hindsight, my guess is "yes", it would have been cheaper for all involved.
What's troubling to me is it appears Boeing failed to place the safety of their ultimate customers - you and me - first through willful ignorance, if not outright deception, and in doing so violated the public's trust (or at least IMHO - still following the story to see what further develops).
And indeed, I am certain they can see in hindsight mistakes they've made, or maybe even wrongdoing by some.
But what I'm wondering is right now, going forward, are they still expecting the expected cost of keeping MCAS to be less than the cost of retraining pilots? It seems the cost of keeping it at best is subject to all kinds of demonstrations of safety and regulatory hoops. It may even be fair to include writing off the entire MAX development and production.
Is setting up for re-certification still comparatively more onerous?
Oct 19, 2019, 10:41 am
#2313
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: 52,140
Sorry, but this is a load of crap. U.S. developers are no better than developers in other countries (and I've worked with a whole lot of both). I can easily point to more garbage being written in the U.S. than anywhere else.
Oct 19, 2019, 11:41 am
#2314
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,160
Thanks, the description of their design decisions matches my understanding.
And indeed, I am certain they can see in hindsight mistakes they've made, or maybe even wrongdoing by some.
But what I'm wondering is right now, going forward, are they still expecting the expected cost of keeping MCAS to be less than the cost of retraining pilots? It seems the cost of keeping it at best is subject to all kinds of demonstrations of safety and regulatory hoops. It may even be fair to include writing off the entire MAX development and production.
Is setting up for re-certification still comparatively more onerous?
And indeed, I am certain they can see in hindsight mistakes they've made, or maybe even wrongdoing by some.
But what I'm wondering is right now, going forward, are they still expecting the expected cost of keeping MCAS to be less than the cost of retraining pilots? It seems the cost of keeping it at best is subject to all kinds of demonstrations of safety and regulatory hoops. It may even be fair to include writing off the entire MAX development and production.
Is setting up for re-certification still comparatively more onerous?
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
Oct 19, 2019, 11:48 am
#2315
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,422
I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.
Oct 19, 2019, 11:49 am
#2316
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
Oct 19, 2019, 1:14 pm
#2317
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 think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
Correct. However, there is no realistic basis for a separate type certification of the MAX (of course, this would prompt separate type certs for 777-200ER and -300ER, A330-200/300 and -900 and A320ceo and neo ). What is more likely is that greater differences training will be required. Previously, it was just a computer based training, which is typical for these situations. Going forward, some regulators could require SIM time either before flying the MAX or during recurrent training.
Last edited by J.Edward; Oct 19, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Oct 19, 2019, 2:47 pm
#2319
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,231
Given Boeing's behavior with this project, it is clear that all planning, development and test efforts need to be conducted in the USA, under direct supervision of regulators, before this aircraft can ever be certified to fly again, or be accepted by the general public. This level of deliberate fraud is almost unprecedented in the industry, and we need an unprecedented response from the DOT and FAA to restore lost confidence in the system as a whole.
Whatever....but the reality of flight control development and aircraft certification are going to need to change 180deg if there is any hope of getting this airplane off the ground, ever again. I don't care how things were done in the past, I am asserting how things will need to be done going forward to get the MAX flying again.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Oct 19, 2019 at 3:15 pm
Oct 19, 2019, 2:54 pm
#2320
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Whatever....but the reality of flight control development and aircraft certification are going to need to change 180deg if there is any hope of getting this airplane off the ground, ever again. I don't care how things were done in the past, I am asserting how things will need to be done going forward to get the MAX flying again.
While mistakes were made (either intentionally or inadvertently), I don’t think an approach akin to throwing a fit and giving up serves customers or airlines well.
Oct 19, 2019, 2:57 pm
#2321
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,471
I don't think the one-time cost of setting up training is the issue. I believe (please someone correct if wrong) that United pilots fly only one certification at a time. I don't think the pilots could hop back-and-forth between Max and other 737s if a separate certification is required.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
So if a separate certification is mandated for the Max, then those pilots would not be flying any other type. Which would be a major expense/headache to develop a whole separate team of pilots for just the Max.
And I would imagine airlines made decisions to purchase based on that spec, and could theoretically pull out of Max purchases if not met.
Correct. However, there is no realistic basis for a separate type certification of the MAX (of course, this would prompt separate type certs for 777-200ER and -300ER, A330-200/300 and -900 and A320ceo and neo ). What is more likely is that greater differences training will be required. Previously, it was just a computer based training, which is typical for these situations. Going forward, some regulators could require SIM time either before flying the MAX or during recurrent training.
Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.
Oct 19, 2019, 3:07 pm
#2322
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,231
Do you propose that every other airplane developed with similar process, philosophy and under the same certification regime be grounded as well?
While mistakes were made (either intentionally or inadvertently), I don’t think an approach akin to throwing a fit and giving up serves customers or airlines well.
While mistakes were made (either intentionally or inadvertently), I don’t think an approach akin to throwing a fit and giving up serves customers or airlines well.
If another aircraft was developed under the FAA's flawed self-certification scheme AND there are/were accidents or incidents that indicate a safety risk AND there is evidence of outright fraud committed by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of falsifying records or withholding prior knowledge of a known defect, then YES I would expect that aircraft to be grounded immediately as an imminent safety hazard.
Fraud is not a mistake - deliberately misleading regulators and purchasers about a known defect or safety hazard which results in an accident with a loss of life, we're now into the territory of sending people to prison.
Oct 19, 2019, 3:40 pm
#2323
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
Thanks all, this is great information. I had the apparent misconception that pilots could go back and forth between the 767 and 777, for instance.
Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.
Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.
Oct 19, 2019, 3:56 pm
#2324
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Thanks all, this is great information. I had the apparent misconception that pilots could go back and forth between the 767 and 777, for instance.
Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.
Would regulators stipulate that the MAX without MCAS has to be a separate certification? If not, I can't see why they aren't seriously considering removing MCAS rather than getting an update accepted.
I’ve been told that MCAS is a requirement for certification. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the the concept of the system. In hindsight, there were flaws with parts of the design. I haven’t spoken to an airline, pilot or technical expert that has a problem with the revised version of MCAS.
That's a strawman question - but I will answer it.
If another aircraft was developed under the FAA's flawed self-certification scheme AND there are/were accidents or incidents that indicate a safety risk AND there is evidence of outright fraud committed by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of falsifying records or withholding prior knowledge of a known defect, then YES I would expect that aircraft to be grounded immediately as an imminent safety hazard.
Fraud is not a mistake - deliberately misleading regulators and purchasers about a known defect or safety hazard which results in an accident with a loss of life, we're now into the territory of sending people to prison.
If another aircraft was developed under the FAA's flawed self-certification scheme AND there are/were accidents or incidents that indicate a safety risk AND there is evidence of outright fraud committed by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of falsifying records or withholding prior knowledge of a known defect, then YES I would expect that aircraft to be grounded immediately as an imminent safety hazard.
Fraud is not a mistake - deliberately misleading regulators and purchasers about a known defect or safety hazard which results in an accident with a loss of life, we're now into the territory of sending people to prison.
Every Airbus and Boeing airplane was developed under the same certification “scheme.” Neither the A330 nor A380 have been grounded despite identified flaws in systems and structures.
Until fraud is proven, it’s best to withhold those accusations.
Oct 19, 2019, 4:03 pm
#2325
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
