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, 2:08 pm
#406
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston MA
Programs: UA 1K/1.5 million miler, SU Gold, JL Sapphire
Posts: 529
For once, a good call by the administration, albeit late and albeit not through the proper channels.
The pressure was becoming untenable. When you have the whole world that keeps a Boeing plane grounded and the only country left is the United States, that is a no win. The trust of the flying public is necessarily put at play.
It doesn't preclude the possibility that everyone jumped the gun. It is indeed quite possible that this is exactly what happened. Still, better safe than sorry.
Now, it is up to Boeing to ensure the light is shone on that whole story.
The pressure was becoming untenable. When you have the whole world that keeps a Boeing plane grounded and the only country left is the United States, that is a no win. The trust of the flying public is necessarily put at play.
It doesn't preclude the possibility that everyone jumped the gun. It is indeed quite possible that this is exactly what happened. Still, better safe than sorry.
Now, it is up to Boeing to ensure the light is shone on that whole story.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:08 pm
#407
Join Date: May 2009
Location: ATL
Posts: 516
FAA and NTSB received the satellite data 2 days ago. Transport Canada received it last night.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:11 pm
#408
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I would argue that not grounding these aircraft sooner undermines confidence in the safety culture of the FAA as well as the airlines who expressed confidence in the aircraft while they were being grounded across the rest of the world.
While there may not be any direct link between these two accidents at this time, there are plenty of similarities and variables that make this disturbing. Both accidents occurred in very similar phases of flight where weather was unlikely to be a factor. These were the same type of aircraft, operated by different airlines in different countries. Both airframes were only a few months old at the time of their respective accidents, limiting the possibility that either accident was caused by age related stresses/maintenance issues with the aircraft. The profiles of each crash show a similar catastrophic high-speed impact with terrain with little warning resulting in the aircraft being pulverized and next to no ability to survive the accident. There is no safety-related reason to keep these aircraft flying and to continue to expose people to the potential risk of a third accident. At some point down the road we may very well find out that these were completely unrelated accidents, however what safety benefits are there to continue operating the aircraft until that is discovered?
If this were a case of one aircraft crashing short of the runway in a major thunderstorm and the other being flown into the side of a mountain in blinding fog that would be one thing, however the similarities between the two crashes cannot be ignored.
While there may not be any direct link between these two accidents at this time, there are plenty of similarities and variables that make this disturbing. Both accidents occurred in very similar phases of flight where weather was unlikely to be a factor. These were the same type of aircraft, operated by different airlines in different countries. Both airframes were only a few months old at the time of their respective accidents, limiting the possibility that either accident was caused by age related stresses/maintenance issues with the aircraft. The profiles of each crash show a similar catastrophic high-speed impact with terrain with little warning resulting in the aircraft being pulverized and next to no ability to survive the accident. There is no safety-related reason to keep these aircraft flying and to continue to expose people to the potential risk of a third accident. At some point down the road we may very well find out that these were completely unrelated accidents, however what safety benefits are there to continue operating the aircraft until that is discovered?
If this were a case of one aircraft crashing short of the runway in a major thunderstorm and the other being flown into the side of a mountain in blinding fog that would be one thing, however the similarities between the two crashes cannot be ignored.
However, Boeing already did a "training fix" - which the FAA should have quickly figured out was given to the involved ET pilots. That a crash with similar facts occurred after that training suggests a bigger problem. Red lights/alarms/all hands on deck should have been occurring. Perhaps they were, but the public (and the public is what matters here, Boeing/FAA can be perfectly correct, but if the public is not buying it, they are sunk) perception is probably now set that the FAA was in Boeing's pocket, and that Boeing was more intested in profits over safety.
Again, pray to DOG it turns out that there is no shared root case between the Lion Air crash, other reports, and the ET crash. The fall-out for Boeing and US jobs will be ginormous if they are linked.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:12 pm
#409
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: United GS; AA EXP; Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 174
Just called GS desk about an upcoming trip (originally) scheduled on MAX 9.
Agent was well informed ("We have 14 MAX 9s but many more regular 737s; Your flight may be replaced with a different plane") and proactively offered help ("Would you like to change to another routing option just in case of cancellation?")
^
Agent was well informed ("We have 14 MAX 9s but many more regular 737s; Your flight may be replaced with a different plane") and proactively offered help ("Would you like to change to another routing option just in case of cancellation?")
^
Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 pm
#410
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
Here is UA's Response:
Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our customers and employees. As we have said since Sunday, we have been in close contact with investigators as well as Boeing to share data and fully cooperate with regulatory authorities. We will comply with the FAA's order and will ground our 14 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft. We will remain in close contact with authorities as their investigation continues.Since Sunday, we have been working diligently on contingency plans to prepare our fleet to minimize the impact to customers. Our Boeing 737 MAX aircraft account for roughly 40 flights a day and through a combination of spare aircraft and rebooking customers, we do not anticipate a significant operational impact as a result of this order. We will continue to work with our customers to help minimize any disruption to their travel plans.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:20 pm
#411
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,454
I would argue that not grounding these aircraft sooner undermines confidence in the safety culture of the FAA as well as the airlines who expressed confidence in the aircraft while they were being grounded across the rest of the world.
While there may not be any direct link between these two accidents at this time, there are plenty of similarities and variables that make this disturbing. Both accidents occurred in very similar phases of flight where weather was unlikely to be a factor. These were the same type of aircraft, operated by different airlines in different countries. Both airframes were only a few months old at the time of their respective accidents, limiting the possibility that either accident was caused by age related stresses/maintenance issues with the aircraft. The profiles of each crash show a similar catastrophic high-speed impact with terrain with little warning resulting in the aircraft being pulverized and next to no ability to survive the accident. There is no safety-related reason to keep these aircraft flying and to continue to expose people to the potential risk of a third accident. At some point down the road we may very well find out that these were completely unrelated accidents, however what safety benefits are there to continue operating the aircraft until that is discovered?
If this were a case of one aircraft crashing short of the runway in a major thunderstorm and the other being flown into the side of a mountain in blinding fog that would be one thing, however the similarities between the two crashes cannot be ignored.
While there may not be any direct link between these two accidents at this time, there are plenty of similarities and variables that make this disturbing. Both accidents occurred in very similar phases of flight where weather was unlikely to be a factor. These were the same type of aircraft, operated by different airlines in different countries. Both airframes were only a few months old at the time of their respective accidents, limiting the possibility that either accident was caused by age related stresses/maintenance issues with the aircraft. The profiles of each crash show a similar catastrophic high-speed impact with terrain with little warning resulting in the aircraft being pulverized and next to no ability to survive the accident. There is no safety-related reason to keep these aircraft flying and to continue to expose people to the potential risk of a third accident. At some point down the road we may very well find out that these were completely unrelated accidents, however what safety benefits are there to continue operating the aircraft until that is discovered?
If this were a case of one aircraft crashing short of the runway in a major thunderstorm and the other being flown into the side of a mountain in blinding fog that would be one thing, however the similarities between the two crashes cannot be ignored.
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:24 pm
#412
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Guess it's back to flying those 737MIN's.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:27 pm
#413
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
"New information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration just after takeoff"
Found in flaps up mode?
Which would be the requirement for the system in question to be active.
Found in flaps up mode?
Which would be the requirement for the system in question to be active.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:35 pm
#414
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,174
Mar 13, 2019, 2:36 pm
#415
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,454
Flaps 0 is not an approved takeoff configuration for the 737, and would have resulted in a configuration warning, but if the flaps were retracted shortly into the climb, that would be one of the prerequisites for the MCAS activation, the others being autopilot off (manual flying); high bank angle, high angle of attack. The single-channel feed AOA probe feed considered by the MCAS logic is susceptible to bad inputs resulting from faulty data, such as that generated by a defective sensor.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:36 pm
#416
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
All of that makes sense to a layman, but the connections you cite are speculative. Similarities between the cases won't be ignored, but the investigation looks much more at the *why* rather than the *what*. The flight data recorders for the ET flight were recovered quickly and will yield actionable data that can weigh on a decision to ground, as has, apparently, the full-flight ADS-B record which apparently shows a similar profile to JT610 (which was unquestionably related to the crew's mismanagement of an issue for which they had been trained).
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:43 pm
#417
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.
Mar 13, 2019, 2:44 pm
#418
Join Date: May 2002
Location: US
Programs: UA GS 2MM
Posts: 1,740
Lion Air is not a safe airline, by any standard. Is that because they are in the “third world,” personally, I don’t think it comes in to play. Lion’s pilots and safety culture are not similar to the US3 equivalent. Ethiopian is a much better run outfit than Lion, but we had a very Inexperienced co-pilot flying. No one with 200 hours is a co-pilot on a 737 in the USA. Period.
So while a US 737 Max has the same risk to experience a flight control problem as any other Max, the experience of a US pilot greatly helps to minimize the risk of catastrophe. If the plane was unsafe, no pilot would operate it. The fact that WN, UA and AA pilots kept flying it tells me they were aware of the the problems, vigalent, prepared, and comfortable flying it.
Mar 13, 2019, 3:00 pm
#419
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LAS ORD
Programs: AA Pro (mostly B6) OZ♦ (flying BR/UA), BA Silver Hyatt LT, Wynn Black, Cosmo Plat, Mlife Noir
Posts: 5,992
Mar 13, 2019, 3:08 pm
#420
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,129
All of that makes sense to a layman, but the connections you cite are speculative. Similarities between the cases won't be ignored, but the investigation looks much more at the *why* rather than the *what*. The flight data recorders for the ET flight were recovered quickly and will yield actionable data that can weigh on a decision to ground, as has, apparently, the full-flight ADS-B record which apparently shows a similar profile to JT610 (which was unquestionably related to the crew's mismanagement of an issue for which they had been trained).
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.
I don't want a regulatory authority making decisions based on public opinion, conjecture and simplistic facial similarities. By the same token, if there is reliable data to suggest similar causal factors, then you have to ground the fleet, and the regulators have done so.