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
Apr 21, 2019, 7:52 am
#1186
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,362
Horrible analogy. I don't know of any proofreading error in history that resulting in killing hundreds of people. Metal shavings inside an engine are hardly analogous to spelling errors. Wiring errors have caused several fires and fatalities in planes over the years.
I. want. my. planes. safe. To do so, I expect an absolutely relentless focus on safety in the design, construction, and maintenance of planes. Anything less results in catastrophe, not spelling errors.
I. want. my. planes. safe. To do so, I expect an absolutely relentless focus on safety in the design, construction, and maintenance of planes. Anything less results in catastrophe, not spelling errors.
This appears to be the emotional response the NYT article was seeking.
My analogy was purely a response to the poor journalism, not the subject.
Responsible journalism wouldn't rely on anecdotal reports of "debris" left behind on new planes, but would investigate how such incidents at
Boeing's 787 N. Charleston plant compare to Boeing's other planes, other plants, and other manufacturers (such as Airbus, Bombardier, Comac, UAC, Embraer, etc...)
The purpose of the final inspection is to find faults in manufacture and/or improper cleaning of the final product.
In the cited paragraph, the inspector found and removed the left-over items.
Apr 21, 2019, 8:00 am
#1187
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
This appears to be the emotional response the NYT article was seeking.
My analogy was purely a response to the poor journalism, not the subject.
Responsible journalism wouldn't rely on anecdotal reports of "debris" left behind on new planes, but would investigate how such incidents at
Boeing's 787 N. Charleston plant compare to Boeing's other planes, other plants, and other manufacturers (such as Airbus, Bombadier, Comac, UAC, Embraer, etc...)
The purpose of the final inspection is to find faults in manufacture and/or improper cleaning of the final product.
In the cited paragraph, the inspector found and removed the left-over items.
My analogy was purely a response to the poor journalism, not the subject.
Responsible journalism wouldn't rely on anecdotal reports of "debris" left behind on new planes, but would investigate how such incidents at
Boeing's 787 N. Charleston plant compare to Boeing's other planes, other plants, and other manufacturers (such as Airbus, Bombadier, Comac, UAC, Embraer, etc...)
The purpose of the final inspection is to find faults in manufacture and/or improper cleaning of the final product.
In the cited paragraph, the inspector found and removed the left-over items.
Why are whistle-blowers routinely denigrated as "disgruntled workers?"
I'll take this journalism, thank you. I. want. my. planes. safe.
Apr 21, 2019, 8:07 am
#1188
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
Clickbait journalism works. NYT know this just as much as TMZ.
True investigative work is expensive...
True investigative work is expensive...
Apr 21, 2019, 8:10 am
#1189
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,362
Apr 21, 2019, 8:30 am
#1190
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer - IEEE Spectrum
Apr 21, 2019, 8:37 am
#1191
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,857
There's no way that shoddy piece of writing would have made it "to print" if there wasn't a current MAX "controversy".
It's full of vagueness and innuendoes.
"Dan Ormson, who worked for American Airlines until retiring this year,
regularly found debris while inspecting Dreamliners in North Charleston,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."
Good. That was your job, Mr. Ormson, and one of the reasons for the inspection.
"Jane Doe, who worked for The New York Times as a proofreader until retiring this year,
regularly found spelling errors while inspecting news articles in New York,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."
What a non-story!
It's full of vagueness and innuendoes.
"Dan Ormson, who worked for American Airlines until retiring this year,
regularly found debris while inspecting Dreamliners in North Charleston,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."
Good. That was your job, Mr. Ormson, and one of the reasons for the inspection.
"Jane Doe, who worked for The New York Times as a proofreader until retiring this year,
regularly found spelling errors while inspecting news articles in New York,
according to three people with knowledge of the situation."
What a non-story!
So your shoddy analogy should really be Jane Doe, a customer of the NYTimes, finding and submitting typos.
Apparently Boeing realizes the problem. Hence the special meeting about it:
Boeing called North Charleston employees to an urgent meeting. The company had a problem: Customers were finding random objects in new planes.
A senior manager implored workers to check more carefully, invoking the crashes. “The company is going through a very difficult time right now,” he said, according to two employees who were present and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
A senior manager implored workers to check more carefully, invoking the crashes. “The company is going through a very difficult time right now,” he said, according to two employees who were present and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Apr 21, 2019, 8:43 am
#1192
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,971
I wonder if any of this is internal battle between SEA and CHS which really started from day one.
I don't know enough about the process but you would think it is hard for an outsider to get to the bottom of the problems at CHS other than relying on FAA data, airline customer statements and employee interviews, right?
Remember, even after the ET crash, Boeing swore up and down their planes are safe. So, at least to the general public, Boeing has a credibility issue. Worse, they only took the problems at CHS more seriously after they have lost credibility on the 737 MAX.
I don't know enough about the process but you would think it is hard for an outsider to get to the bottom of the problems at CHS other than relying on FAA data, airline customer statements and employee interviews, right?
Remember, even after the ET crash, Boeing swore up and down their planes are safe. So, at least to the general public, Boeing has a credibility issue. Worse, they only took the problems at CHS more seriously after they have lost credibility on the 737 MAX.
Apr 21, 2019, 9:01 am
#1193
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Why are these items "left over?" In a solid process, wouldn't these items not be "left over" in the first place? Why would Qatar reject planes from this particular factory? Where is the six-sigma quality control - heck, it should be approaching seven-sigma for planes.
Why are whistle-blowers routinely denigrated as "disgruntled workers?"
I'll take this journalism, thank you. I. want. my. planes. safe.
Why are whistle-blowers routinely denigrated as "disgruntled workers?"
I'll take this journalism, thank you. I. want. my. planes. safe.
Apr 21, 2019, 9:56 am
#1194
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,598
If the customer inspectors are finding FOD, that means your own inspectors (and workers) aren't doing their jobs. The workers shouldn't be leaving tools and debris, and your own inspectors should be finding it if they are. In many cases FOD isn't "improper cleaning" it's bad work habits - leaving tools is a big no-no, and depending on the environment, shavings may need to be vacuumed immediately or the operation even done with an operating vacuum sucking them up as they form.
Apr 21, 2019, 10:30 am
#1195
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 27
Sure, I think all businesses should poll their customers in order to find out what training their employees need.
Safety training shouldn't be a PR stunt. If UA feels that their pilots need additional simulator training, they'll schedule it. They have as much motivation to do so as the "vocal flying customers."
Safety training shouldn't be a PR stunt. If UA feels that their pilots need additional simulator training, they'll schedule it. They have as much motivation to do so as the "vocal flying customers."
Back away from the media sensationalism and look at the facts.
Apr 21, 2019, 10:48 am
#1196
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,219
It's truly a shame this whole Max issue has been taken over by ill informed media looking for viewers and clicks and self proclaimed "experts" with no relevant experience other than having sat in the back of airliners for many, many miles. Rather than blame the reactions of the pilots to an abnormal aircraft state, media goes for the half truth and scare tactics which apparently do work based on many posts here which are full of emotion vs facts. A faulty MCAS would present itself to the crew like a runaway stabilizer trim event which is trained in the simulator already and a checklist procedure exists to remedy the undesired aircraft state. If the pilots incorrectly diagnose or fail to carry out the proper procedure, how is that the airplane's fault? Boeing does deserve blame in that the MCAS activation is not subject to multiple sensor inputs as are most other systems so that any erroneous sensor input can be evaluated and cross checked before the airplane system reacts. The 2nd angle of attack sensor input should never have been "optional". However, even with an erroneous activation, the plane should not crash if it is being operated by properly trained and experienced pilots just as if an engine failure at rotation can either be essentially a non event or a smoking hole based on the training and experience of the pilots.
Back away from the media sensationalism and look at the facts.
Back away from the media sensationalism and look at the facts.
Boeing changed the aircraft and made a sensor optional and sold the plane as if it were the same as existing aircraft on which the pilots had been trained. The two airlines involved are not having 737 (non MAX) planes diving into the ground with everyone on board being killed. 300 people lost their lives and after the first tragedy Boeing and the FAA both said nothing to worry about here and then the second tragedy involved a very experienced pilot (many flying hours from what I read).
I am not an engineer, I am not a technician, I am not a pilot. I am a member of the flying public who expects the FAA would protect the interests of the flying public.
IMO, based on the reports I have read and based on the response of other flying agencies elsewhere in the world, it is not the dead pilots and not the airlines that purchased an aircraft sold to them as the same model when in fact it was a different model that are at fault. The blame/fault for the 300 people who are dead rests solely with Boeing and the FAA.
Last edited by Aussienarelle; Apr 21, 2019 at 11:27 am
Apr 21, 2019, 11:18 am
#1197
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,362
And this would have been such a good angle for a half-decent journalist to pursue.
First establish [with evidence] that there is an unusually high occurrence at North Charleston for this inadequacy, and then ask and hopefully answer the WHY.
Disgruntled employees are quick to blame "management", but is that REALLY the cause, and what precisely does that mean??
- Does Boeing deliberately employ unskilled workforce to save money it would have to spend on better trained staff?
- Is the education system of the U.S. tradesman abysmally poor?
- Are the unions too self-absorbed and not promoting or demanding quality work from their members, but instead letting them cruise along with little accountability?
A good journalist will dig deep. A lazy and crappy journalist will quote Twitter.
And it matters naught: no one cares and mediocracy rules.
Apr 21, 2019, 11:37 am
#1198
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,417
There is no question who would have the most to gain by innuendo, and it's not management, the airlines, the workers, or the press.
Apr 21, 2019, 11:37 am
#1199
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,598
Exactly!
- Does Boeing deliberately employ unskilled workforce to save money it would have to spend on better trained staff?
- Are the unions too self-absorbed and not promoting or demanding quality work from their members, but instead letting them cruise along with little accountability?
- Does Boeing deliberately employ unskilled workforce to save money it would have to spend on better trained staff?
- Are the unions too self-absorbed and not promoting or demanding quality work from their members, but instead letting them cruise along with little accountability?
Apr 21, 2019, 11:59 am
#1200
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
These were touched on in the article - Boeing didn't bring out workers from Everett because they didn't want the SC employees to see what the union shop was getting, and there's not a big aerospace assembly experience base in SC. The workers could be perfectly fine skilled workers, but if they're coming from a different manufacturing and assembly environment, they aren't likely to have the same kind of work habits that you expect in an aircraft plant, and they're all learning at the same time. Everett has a well established aircraft assembly base of workers, so new workers coming in will learn good habits from the current workers. If the Charleston workers are coming in cold, they won't get that.
It it is possible that most were not part of IAM as the contract limits Boeing’s ability to deploy workers outside of the existing facilities in Washington.