Originally Posted by JNelson113 (Post 30878910)

Oh man, you all will just love this. The CSR comes back on and says that she made the change, but "my supervisor said that there is nothing wrong with the plane and if there were the FAA would have grounded them. That crash happened because the pilots made mistakes and in those countries the pilots aren't well trained. So everyone here is perfectly safe flying the MAX." This made me VERY angry and I said that it was outrageous and unfair for them to blame the pilots while the investigation is ongoing and that she and her supervisor should not be saying this to people. She then just said "okay okay" to get me off the phone.

Originally Posted by txaggiemiles (Post 30878939)

This is absolutely nuts! I am glad they made the change though, and I think it shows UA is being proactive and accommodating here for those who need it, regardless of this agent's unsolicited commentary.

Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B (Post 30878629)

Originally Posted by spin88 (Post 30878701)

(1) I seriously doubt that the CAAC would have said that they had reports when none existed. First of all, Boeing would immediately want to have the details on them, as would the FAA. Second, if they did not exist, it would destroy the CAAC's credibility. (2) I would have expected with one accident, not involving a Chinese plane, for the CAAC to keep its powder dry, and expect Boeing and the FAA to be investigating things quickly and professionally.

I am not saying that a trade war did/did not impact their decision to ground the planes (which has now been seconded the EU, so not out in left field...) but I find no reasonable situation where the CAAC would lie about having reports from Chinese pilots of similar issues.



Yes, and as AB Fan noted, Airbus swung into action, going so far as to spend Millions of $$$ to raise the plane off the south Atlantic sea floor. Boeing seems to have gone into a defensive crouch with the LionAir Crash - which I assumed from their statements was a one off, failure of Lion Air to train in a new system. Now that this turns out to be a suspect statement - with a new reflash of the system coming in a few weeks - Boeing has frankly substantially decreased my trust in them. I am getting a sneaking suspicion that having cut corners on the MAX (being beated out of the box by the neo, and lacking the will and engineering resources for a new aircraft) and with it being about 70% of sales, that Boeing is not exactly being forthcoming.

+1

Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B (Post 30878854)

But ua should do the right thing.

---

---

Originally Posted by jsloan (Post 30878991)

You're presupposing what "the right thing" is. Perhaps the "right thing" is to resist the rush to judgement.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio (Post 30878920)

I'm not in the "cutting corners" camp by any means. OTOH, it's well known Boeing didn't want to design an entirely new main landing gear to raise the airframe because it would have required a fully new certification process.

Originally Posted by mozilla (Post 30879036)

Absolutely agree. However, when you're getting cornered by the rest of the world, you better make sure that nothing happens with any of the B3XM that you keep flying. Because even the slightest unrelated incident involving this type of aircraft will cause a media and public opinion backlash that would make the Dao case look like a walk in the park, possibly severely tarnishing UA's safety reputation. UA won't get the credit that ET got.

We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-adverse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.

Originally Posted by JNelson113 (Post 30878799)

Just a data point here, I'm scheduled to fly the MAX 9 tomorrow from OGG to LAX. I'm on the phone with UA right now and being told that the pilots are well trained and the MAX 8 is not the same as the 9, and so on. Resistance to changing me to a different flight (on a 772) even though there's tons of room and it's listed as K9 (I have a K class ticket). Anyone else have a different experience?

Update: After the rep consulted with a supervisor the change was made.

Originally Posted by IAH-OIL-TRASH (Post 30879061)

Are you the first FTer to beg to get on a 10-across 772 from a 737 because you prefer that plane :) ?

I know - different issues...

Originally Posted by mozilla (Post 30879036)

Absolutely agree. However, when you're getting cornered by the rest of the world, you better make sure that nothing happens with any of the B3XM that you keep flying. Because even the slightest unrelated incident involving this type of aircraft will cause a media and public opinion backlash that would make the Dao case look like a walk in the park, possibly severely tarnishing UA's safety reputation. UA won't get the credit that ET got.

We have statistics on our side, and I stand by our belief that the right thing is to keep flying the B38M. But then again, I'm not the most risk-averse person, and it's up to UA to decide if they can live with the risk outlined above.

Originally Posted by EWR764 (Post 30879043)

But any grounding, at this point, would be purely speculative and nothing more than acceding to the mob. For some airlines or regulatory authorities, the benefit to that approach outweighs the commercial and reputational risk.

Originally Posted by mozilla (Post 30879079)

However, while you and I agree, the public opinion will not agree if an incident occurs.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio (Post 30878959)

I don't think we should consider this to be a big deal. United doesn't want to say anything negative about the MAX series as it would then call into question why they haven't grounded their small fleet.

Originally Posted by EWR764 (Post 30879166)

Of course it won't... but what makes an incident meaningfully more likely today, or tomorrow, versus Saturday, or any time before ET302?