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
Mar 13, 2019, 1:25 pm
#377
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
No rational manager of a publicly-traded corporation would commit this kind of asinine hari-kari, especially when the company is likely insured for the risk associated with a federally-mandated grounding of an aircraft type.
But hey, it's a chance to swipe at UA, and that can't be missed, right???
But hey, it's a chance to swipe at UA, and that can't be missed, right???
And if you look up thread, I suggested that UA did the right thing when it was granting waivers on change fees (unlike SWA and AA). Props where props are due. But events have moved on, and while United was ahead of the curve, they ended up way behind the curve.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:25 pm
#378
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
This is not a first world vs third world issue. Comparisons like these are uncalled for, especially when the investigation is just in the initial stages.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:28 pm
#379
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,901
I was thinking the same thing. This has to leave some birds in odd locations. The airlines will have planes stuck all over the place, some at airports where they may have just a handful of flights - the planes will just sit there? And what about the pax at smaller airports with limited capacity or options. I guess UA might have to send a rescue bird to some places just to pick up the stranded pax? At this point the CUN-xxx flights later this afternoon are still showing as "on schedule."
Mar 13, 2019, 1:30 pm
#380
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATL
Posts: 516
I was thinking the same thing. This has to leave some birds in odd locations. The airlines will have planes stuck all over the place, some at airports where they may have just a handful of flights - the planes will just sit there? And what about the pax at smaller airports with limited capacity or options. I guess UA might have to send a rescue bird to some places just to pick up the stranded pax?
Mar 13, 2019, 1:32 pm
#381
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I seriously (for the workers involved and the overall health of the US economy) hope that shortly we find out that there is some entirely unconnected, and having nothing to do with Boeing root cause of the ET crash. If not, Boeing's actions will be a business school case study in how NOT to handle a potentially enterprise ending crisis.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:34 pm
#383
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,453
This is what I struggle with: I am totally unconcerned with media analysis of air crashes because there is an insatiable desire for information that's simply not available, which breeds speculation on wild theories, especially by people who are totally unqualified to do so. The only public data is that which was disseminated following Lion Air in November. If those recommendations are the only objective facts on which the calls to ground the MAX rest, then why is it so urgent that we take action RIGHT NOW? If the information suggests a grounding is appropriate, it should have happened in November/December, when fewer airplanes were in service and the general public didn't really care.
Now that there's been a second crash, why shouldn't we allow the investigative process to run its course? What, exactly, has changed? Emergency directives and groundings usually come about after repeatable anomalies are identified in the course of an investigation... that's nothing new, and it doesn't usually take very long. But if there is no such data from the Ethiopian crash YET, then all we are doing is grounding the airplane "until we can figure out what the heck is going on"... gee, that sounds like logic I've heard applied to sell other half-baked measures, like travel bans.
If there's nothing actionable tying Lion Air to Ethiopian right now, this moment, then the agency takes a big credibility hit.
I'm not sure how insurance policies are drafted for foreign airlines in their home countries, but there are numerous commercial reasons US carriers (and AC) didn't preemptively shut down their respective fleets. But keep banging the drum.
Now that there's been a second crash, why shouldn't we allow the investigative process to run its course? What, exactly, has changed? Emergency directives and groundings usually come about after repeatable anomalies are identified in the course of an investigation... that's nothing new, and it doesn't usually take very long. But if there is no such data from the Ethiopian crash YET, then all we are doing is grounding the airplane "until we can figure out what the heck is going on"... gee, that sounds like logic I've heard applied to sell other half-baked measures, like travel bans.
If there's nothing actionable tying Lion Air to Ethiopian right now, this moment, then the agency takes a big credibility hit.
Actually, lots and lots of airlines voluntarily stopped flying the MAX before they were forced to do so. They realized the PR issue. If anything the "rational mangers" have spoken, they just did something other then the 3 US airlines. see e.g. https://www.apnews.com/64698c6e79be4e6ca109f9c9d3e5e86a (listing some carriers that grounded on their own).
And if you look up thread, I suggested that UA did the right thing when it was granting waivers on change fees (unlike SWA and AA). Props where props are due. But events have moved on, and while United was ahead of the curve, they ended up way behind the curve.
And if you look up thread, I suggested that UA did the right thing when it was granting waivers on change fees (unlike SWA and AA). Props where props are due. But events have moved on, and while United was ahead of the curve, they ended up way behind the curve.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 16, 2019 at 12:42 am Reason: removed quite of deleted material
Mar 13, 2019, 1:35 pm
#384
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,467
The FAA looks bad. Boeing captive. I'm not so sure about the carriers. They have the hands-on experience with these aircraft to know how they behave in flight. Certainly UA had no operational reason to undertake an unreasonable risk given the relatively small number of aircraft concerned. Although I suspect all three carriers were subject to intense lobbying by Boeing.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:40 pm
#385
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: TX
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 729
I was thinking the same thing. This has to leave some birds in odd locations. The airlines will have planes stuck all over the place, some at airports where they may have just a handful of flights - the planes will just sit there? And what about the pax at smaller airports with limited capacity or options. I guess UA might have to send a rescue bird to some places just to pick up the stranded pax? At this point the CUN-xxx flights later this afternoon are still showing as "on schedule."
IAH - 3
SFO - 4
LAX - 2
Hawaii (KOA/OGG) - 2
MSY - 1
BOS - 1
CUN - 1
Mar 13, 2019, 1:40 pm
#386
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
Mar 13, 2019, 1:41 pm
#387
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K/MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Something, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 8,161
Mar 13, 2019, 1:42 pm
#388
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,115
Text of the FAA emergency order: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/med...ency_Order.pdf
It includes the B39M.
Special flight permits will be required for non-revenue flights such as ferrying.
The decision to ground the plane was made after new evidence was gathered at the site of the ET crash today.
It includes the B39M.
Special flight permits will be required for non-revenue flights such as ferrying.
The decision to ground the plane was made after new evidence was gathered at the site of the ET crash today.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:44 pm
#389
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 564
Actually, lots and lots of airlines voluntarily stopped flying the MAX before they were forced to do so. They realized the PR issue. If anything the "rational mangers" have spoken, they just did something other then the 3 US airlines. see e.g. https://www.apnews.com/64698c6e79be4e6ca109f9c9d3e5e86a (listing some carriers that grounded on their own).
And if you look up thread, I suggested that UA did the right thing when it was granting waivers on change fees (unlike SWA and AA). Props where props are due. But events have moved on, and while United was ahead of the curve, they ended up way behind the curve.
And if you look up thread, I suggested that UA did the right thing when it was granting waivers on change fees (unlike SWA and AA). Props where props are due. But events have moved on, and while United was ahead of the curve, they ended up way behind the curve.
Mar 13, 2019, 1:44 pm
#390
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,453
I maintain that if the grounding rests on data independent of the ET crash, then emergency action should have been taken on the MAX months ago, not in response to a public outcry. If there's information from the ET analysis that ties it to the Lion Air crash, then Boeing has a problem and the grounding is justifiable.