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 25, 2019, 5:31 pm
#811
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
According to Politico, US pilots have complained about issues with the anti stall system. It would appear that in all those instances, they were able to regain control of the aircraft.
Mar 25, 2019, 6:12 pm
#812
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
Mar 25, 2019, 6:49 pm
#813
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
A lot of this reminds me of the "discussion" after the Apollo 1 fire. Borman's testimony seems particularly apt (recreated in "From the Earth to the Moon" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaBYoElHVg). ...........
Nevertheless, the OP's question was more strategic, should UA change aircraft? I would still say no for a variety of reasons (not even counting my own admitted bias against Airbus)........
Nevertheless, the OP's question was more strategic, should UA change aircraft? I would still say no for a variety of reasons (not even counting my own admitted bias against Airbus)........
-- Should-United-Cancel-Its-Order-100-737-Max-10s-Order-a321neo?
Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 – 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?
The post got transferred here because the Mod was trying to focus the discussion on should UA change aircraft? So when the post was transferred here, it borught over the quted language of "should UA change aircraft? " which is the other thread .......................}}
Great video.
The cabin width of the737 was set nearly 65 years ago with the 707, based on passengers born in the Great Depression & with a human body frame impacted by the food rationing during WW II. If you can remember, or if too young, imagine, the passengers were a lot thinner then. Today getting into a 737 is like trying to squeeze into a pair of pants that should have been discarded 15 years ago. The 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are gone, and United needs a bigger pair of pants, maybe the A321neo & some A220s.
Last edited by BF263533; Mar 27, 2019 at 11:25 am Reason: Explain the original context & origin of post
Mar 25, 2019, 7:31 pm
#814
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA LT 1K, 3 MM; Marriott Titanium; IHG Platinum
Posts: 6,958
Why are AA and WN cancelling MAX flights while UA is able to reassign aircraft without cancelling? Does UA have lower utilization than those two? By MAX/non-MAX proportion, UA isn't dramatically different than either. Or are they much more flexible in their substitutions? I can imagine WN is a little constrained, but I wonder why AA needs to cancel.
Mar 25, 2019, 8:05 pm
#815
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
No. I read the cited ASRS reports. The events in the article were not related to any MCAS issues.
There have been no unscheduled MCAS activations recorded on the DFDRs of US airline MAX flights. That data would be collected in the FOQA programs which download the DFDR data and is used to monitor and improve flight safety.
There have been no unscheduled MCAS activations recorded on the DFDRs of US airline MAX flights. That data would be collected in the FOQA programs which download the DFDR data and is used to monitor and improve flight safety.
Mar 25, 2019, 8:27 pm
#816
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
No. I read the cited ASRS reports. The events in the article were not related to any MCAS issues.
There have been no unscheduled MCAS activations recorded on the DFDRs of US airline MAX flights. That data would be collected in the FOQA programs which download the DFDR data and is used to monitor and improve flight safety.
There have been no unscheduled MCAS activations recorded on the DFDRs of US airline MAX flights. That data would be collected in the FOQA programs which download the DFDR data and is used to monitor and improve flight safety.
As a lowly pax, I just don't want my plane stalling in the air. And I don't want pilots having to juggle a bunch of new systems on an hour of training just so a new plane can stay on a 50-year-old type certification. <shrugs>
Mar 25, 2019, 8:39 pm
#817
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,857
Beleive this post, https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/30881884-post317.html, dissected the same set of reports.
Mar 25, 2019, 8:52 pm
#818
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tx
Programs: AA, UA, WN
Posts: 812
Has it been determined that MCAS does not function with flaps or autopilot? Boeing said no but what configuration was the Ethiopian flight in?
There is a presumption being made by some that the previously reported events cannot be MCAS because Boeing said so. They also told the FAA .6 degrees but in reality that was a lie...they did not plan failure protections with one sensor vane....why is it not possible that a flap or autopilot configuration be ignored by MCAS?....cuz Boeing said so?
There is a presumption being made by some that the previously reported events cannot be MCAS because Boeing said so. They also told the FAA .6 degrees but in reality that was a lie...they did not plan failure protections with one sensor vane....why is it not possible that a flap or autopilot configuration be ignored by MCAS?....cuz Boeing said so?
Mar 25, 2019, 8:54 pm
#819
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,703
Beleive this post, https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/30881884-post317.html, dissected the same set of reports.
The "dissection" of the complaints went into besmirching at least one of the pilots who made a complaint.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 25, 2019 at 9:01 pm Reason: Dicuss the issue; not the poster(s)
Mar 25, 2019, 9:16 pm
#820
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,413
The sad irony here is that it's the A320 series that's fully fly-by-wire, not the 737. The scenario that many of you seem to be envisioning -- some sort of malicious / untested / defective automated component crashing the plane while human pilots are helpless to stop it -- is infinitely more plausible with an A321 than it is with a 737 MAX, because the 737 MAX has hydraulic (manual) controls, whereas the A321 does not. In fact, the A320 series will ignore a pilot's instruction to go outside of normal flight operations unless it's been placed into override mode. On the 737, the pilot always has the option to disconnect the fly-by-wire systems and fly the plane manually, barring something completely catastrophic happening in the air.
Mar 25, 2019, 9:24 pm
#821
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
A lot of news articles out there continue to state that the MAX’s new larger engines closer to the front of the plane tend to force the nose up. Is this an accurate statement, and if it is, do airplanes like the A320neo, 757 and 787 have the same nose up tendency because of their larger engines?
Mar 25, 2019, 9:52 pm
#822
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
A lot of news articles out there continue to state that the MAX’s new larger engines closer to the front of the plane tend to force the nose up. Is this an accurate statement, and if it is, do airplanes like the A320neo, 757 and 787 have the same nose up tendency because of their larger engines?
The others don't have to worry about that because they have a MUCH higher ground clearance
Mar 25, 2019, 10:00 pm
#823
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SEA, SFO, PRG
Programs: UA 1k, Delta Gold
Posts: 77
The MCAS is specifically a system designed to mimic the feel of the 737NG for a human pilot. (Think: cornering in a sports car vs. a family sedan). The autopilot doesn't care about the feel of the plane.
The sad irony here is that it's the A320 series that's fully fly-by-wire, not the 737. The scenario that many of you seem to be envisioning -- some sort of malicious / untested / defective automated component crashing the plane while human pilots are helpless to stop it -- is infinitely more plausible with an A321 than it is with a 737 MAX, because the 737 MAX has hydraulic (manual) controls, whereas the A321 does not. In fact, the A320 series will ignore a pilot's instruction to go outside of normal flight operations unless it's been placed into override mode. On the 737, the pilot always has the option to disconnect the fly-by-wire systems and fly the plane manually, barring something completely catastrophic happening in the air.
The sad irony here is that it's the A320 series that's fully fly-by-wire, not the 737. The scenario that many of you seem to be envisioning -- some sort of malicious / untested / defective automated component crashing the plane while human pilots are helpless to stop it -- is infinitely more plausible with an A321 than it is with a 737 MAX, because the 737 MAX has hydraulic (manual) controls, whereas the A321 does not. In fact, the A320 series will ignore a pilot's instruction to go outside of normal flight operations unless it's been placed into override mode. On the 737, the pilot always has the option to disconnect the fly-by-wire systems and fly the plane manually, barring something completely catastrophic happening in the air.
A320 has mechanical backups and direct law controls.
Obviously some Boeing pilots cannot even identify when to disconnect FBW, because undocumented intermittend nose-down trimming exceeding elevator authority has different symptoms from runnaway trim procedure they train for.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Mar 25, 2019 at 10:10 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s);
Mar 25, 2019, 10:02 pm
#824
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
I remember back in the late 1960s seeing those Untied 737s with those smaller long engines with lots of ground clearance. Then in the mid 1980s seeing the737-300 with a lot less engine ground clearance and odd shape.
Mar 25, 2019, 11:17 pm
#825
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,413
That said, my point wasn't that FBW systems are unsafe, or even that the mechanical backup system is an intentional safety feature, although Boeing marketed it as such for years after the introduction of the A320. Rather, the point is that the scenario some people are describing -- the plane crashing itself into the ground with the pilot unable to prevent it -- is virtually impossible on a 737 MAX specifically because it's not FBW.