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, 12:04 pm
#1201
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 27
So then Boeing is still at fault for selling an aircraft to airlines with inadequately trained crew? That is sarcasm on my part.
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.
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.
Apr 21, 2019, 12:12 pm
#1202
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,219
The "very experienced" first officer in Ethiopia was flying the doomed flight and had 200 hours total flight time which is absurd to be flying an airliner with passengers. Boeing created the Max handling systems to MIMIC the flight characteristics (feel) of the NG series to make changing models throughout a pilot's day seamless as far as feeling of the controls. Again, if a Max had lost an engine on takeoff and the pilots handled improperly, it would not be Boeing fault when they crashed, so why is this fault? The pilots are the last line of defense and responsible for the safety of the passengers and in both crashes of the Max they failed miserably. How the airplane got into an unusual situation is truly irrelevant, they failed and it's due to poor training and poor skills. If you were a pilot and stood in the doorway one time and saw the faces of the hundred(s) of people who put their lives in your hands, it would be much clearer where the ultimate responsibility lies. Making the airplane more tolerant of unskilled pilots is a different issue completely and we can discuss Air France putting a perfectly good Airbus into the Atlantic at the hands of "experienced" crew and a bad sensor but somehow the A330 never was grounded due to the inept actions of the Air France crew. Media hype and click bait articles are the drivers today of public perception, not facts.
Apr 21, 2019, 12:16 pm
#1203
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,130
The "very experienced" first officer in Ethiopia was flying the doomed flight and had 200 hours total flight time which is absurd to be flying an airliner with passengers. Boeing created the Max handling systems to MIMIC the flight characteristics (feel) of the NG series to make changing models throughout a pilot's day seamless as far as feeling of the controls. Again, if a Max had lost an engine on takeoff and the pilots handled improperly, it would not be Boeing fault when they crashed, so why is this fault? The pilots are the last line of defense and responsible for the safety of the passengers and in both crashes of the Max they failed miserably. How the airplane got into an unusual situation is truly irrelevant, they failed and it's due to poor training and poor skills. If you were a pilot and stood in the doorway one time and saw the faces of the hundred(s) of people who put their lives in your hands, it would be much clearer where the ultimate responsibility lies. Making the airplane more tolerant of unskilled pilots is a different issue completely and we can discuss Air France putting a perfectly good Airbus into the Atlantic at the hands of "experienced" crew and a bad sensor but somehow the A330 never was grounded due to the inept actions of the Air France crew. Media hype and click bait articles are the drivers today of public perception, not facts.
Apr 21, 2019, 12:34 pm
#1204
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,219
Apr 21, 2019, 12:47 pm
#1205
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 27
Let's say for the sake of the argument you are right (although I reiterate flying agencies elsewhere in the world do not see it that way and grounded the 737MAX before the FAA took any action), why are the 737NG planes not diving into the ground? Same airlines/same level of pilot training.
And that would have been an equally incorrect knee-jerk reaction like the Max grounding. When your airplane is yelling at you nearly 75 times, "STALL" and yet you keep holding the Airbus in a stall and nobody says "hey, maybe we are stalling" while you manually fly the plane into the ocean, perhaps that is a training/skill issue and not the airplane's fault requiring grounding. Airplanes will always break and it's up to the crew to identify the issue correctly and remedy it. Faults happen every single day and you don't know about it because it gets handled properly and you reach your destination safely.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 21, 2019 at 12:55 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
Apr 21, 2019, 12:55 pm
#1206
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SAN
Programs: Nothing, nowhere!
Posts: 23,315
Perhaps we should agree to disagree, you are arguing about the fault that precipitated the crashes while my position is that it doesn't matter how the planes got upset, the pilots could have and should have keep those people alive. They would all be alive today with competent pilots at the controls.
Now it has the uphill task of fixing the Max in way the worldwide aviation authorities will accept AND restore it's reputation as a company that build excellent and safe aeroplanes.
Apr 21, 2019, 1:00 pm
#1207
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,763
The ET pilots followed the checklist provided as written, and were still unable to gain control of the aircraft. If pilots follow the prescribed procedure and it still results in a fatal crash, then it is (in my opinion) reasonable to conclude that there is a design issue (whether its the design of the procedure, the design of the aircraft, or both)
Apr 21, 2019, 1:00 pm
#1208
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
Apr 21, 2019, 1:17 pm
#1209
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The ET pilots followed the checklist provided as written, and were still unable to gain control of the aircraft. If pilots follow the prescribed procedure and it still results in a fatal crash, then it is (in my opinion) reasonable to conclude that there is a design issue (whether its the design of the procedure, the design of the aircraft, or both)
Apr 21, 2019, 1:37 pm
#1210
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: 4éme
Posts: 12,044
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.
In a blistering attack on Boeing, the Air Force's top acquisition official said the company has a "severe situation" with flawed inspections of its new KC-46 air refueling tanker aircraft, after trash and industrial tools were found in some planes after they were delivered to the Air Force.
Apr 21, 2019, 1:41 pm
#1211
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,708
Exactly!
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.
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, 4:42 pm
#1212
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
It will be interesting to see if the737 MAX will become more stall prone after MCAS is made less effective.
Apr 21, 2019, 5:42 pm
#1213
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K (since 2008), *G (since 1990), 1MM
Posts: 3,219
In line with that thinking I am interested to see if the foreign agencies will actually require Boeing to certify the 737MAX as a different aircraft frame. If the FAA does not and other agencies do then it will be a USA domestic plane only, albeit with a long range.
Apr 21, 2019, 6:10 pm
#1214
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,185
I don't think it is productive to try to allocate fault between design and crew performance. They are two separate issues which should be addressed independently.
It is certainly true that the system should not have allowed a single-point failure to cause repeated unscheduled MCAS activations.
It is also becoming clear that the crews should have been able to handle the repeated unscheduled MCAS activations.
Boeing's software fix is intended to address the first point. We also need to address the second.
That is what the airline said in their press releases but not everyone agrees with their conclusion.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/3...7NODddBu5xB358
MCAS is not a stall prevention, or stall recovery, system despite the numerous media reports to the contrary. Some airplanes do have such systems including stick-pushers which aggressively push the control wheels forward as the aircraft approaches a stall. The 737 does not.
MCAS is exactly what the name says, a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In certain very-high angle-of-attack situations the MAX's elevator "feel" is too light as compared to the 737 NG. MCAS adds a nose-down bias, through the application of stabilizer trim, in order to increase the pitch forces and produce an elevator "feel" that is more similar to the 737 NGs. The situations in which MCAS was designed to operate are not situations that would normally be encountered in airline operations.
It is certainly true that the system should not have allowed a single-point failure to cause repeated unscheduled MCAS activations.
It is also becoming clear that the crews should have been able to handle the repeated unscheduled MCAS activations.
Boeing's software fix is intended to address the first point. We also need to address the second.
That is what the airline said in their press releases but not everyone agrees with their conclusion.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/3...7NODddBu5xB358
MCAS is exactly what the name says, a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In certain very-high angle-of-attack situations the MAX's elevator "feel" is too light as compared to the 737 NG. MCAS adds a nose-down bias, through the application of stabilizer trim, in order to increase the pitch forces and produce an elevator "feel" that is more similar to the 737 NGs. The situations in which MCAS was designed to operate are not situations that would normally be encountered in airline operations.
Apr 21, 2019, 6:22 pm
#1215
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
In line with that thinking I am interested to see if the foreign agencies will actually require Boeing to certify the 737MAX as a different aircraft frame. If the FAA does not and other agencies do then it will be a USA domestic plane only, albeit with a long range.