And Chinese aviation authorities have always been very picky and fast to act, so suggesting it's because of trade war is really stretching it.

However, the motivations are very different here.

Ethiopian Airlines has every reason to ground the jet until they regain confidence in it.
The USA has every reason not to ground the jet. The FAA works very (some say too) closely with Boeing and whilst the two accidents superficially look connected, the FAA is going to figure it can wait for preliminaries from the black box.
Other countries will simply look at this on a balance of risk and reward. China has always been very concerned about risk. Europe, for example, has very few of the type flying so is not going to rock the boat. It's not an unreasonable thing to do to ground the plane in the circumstances and those who want an easy life and don't care all that much about the commercial consequences will tend towards grounding.

The bottom of this article has an interesting hint of where UA might be going with this very question. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ic/3127692002/

Here is the tweet sent by UA to a traveler (referenced in above article):

Casey Flores@caseyjflores
· Thanks! Any plans to get rid of them? I only fly with you guys and am nervous as ever about them now. I understand if you’re in a “no comment” mode on this.https://twitter.com/unitedUnited Airlines
✔@unitedYour safety is our first priority. We completely understand. We don't fly 737 Max 8 but we fly 737 Max 9. There are 14 in our fleet. If you prefer not to fly on one we completely understand and will do what is best in our capabilities to find alternative travel arrangements. ^DP

4

I've been trying to avoid MAX planes since the Lion Air accident but I'm not being hysterical about it. I had an equipment sub on an AA flight in January with a MAX 8 and I still flew it. Will I book a MAX when alternatives are available? No. If one is subbed in or there really aren't any other options? I'll still fly it, but maybe just take a Xanax ahead of time.

One small issue with this though is that these are subject to last minute swaps (in and out of the MAX). Makes it tough, but I'm glad to see UA (it appears) making it possible for people to swap out of it if they want. Also kudos to the UA team for knowing what the person was asking and responding appropriately. The person asked if they fly 737s.

AFA (FA Union representing UAL FAs) Statement on ET302

https://www.afacwa.org/afa_statement_on_et_302
(bolding mine)

"Conduct an investigation" and not "grounding" is, I think, the right way to go about this until more is known.

If reporting (and its an IF) is to believed, then boeing failed to properly train pilots to deal with a new system that gets between their control and then the actions of the aircraft. The Air France airbus that went down also had an instrumentation failure that led to improper control inputs and hull loss.

I looked at my 16 pending flights this month and in April, and I have one 737. If United swaps the equipment out with a 737 MAX8, I won't fly it. I haven't felt comfortable flying it since the Lion Air accident, and Boeing has not done enough to make me feel safe.

I was in a DC-10 accident decades ago, and I just won't fly a plane that's iffy.

Sioux City?

I was NOT avoiding the MAX's (other than that they are sucky aircraft from a passenger standpoint, narrow tight seats and horrible bathrooms) on safety grounds, but this crash has me, and my family, on hold flying them.

It appeared - and Boeing claimed - that the Lion Air crash was a result of a failure of training on a new fly-by wire trim system for the nose trim. Boeing made a change, and did not update the training. But there is now a lot of discussion that this is actually the result of a system put on because the fundamental dynamics of the 60 year old air frame are now less stable than is optimum, which requires automated systems work well for flight.

The problem is that McDonald-Douglas (lets just call a spade a spade, the company is really in its management and approach now McDonald-Douglas, it is no longer the Boeing that build the best, safest, aircraft, and was pilot focused) - focused on doing in its unions and ofshoring design work to sub-contractors to reduce its expenditures - did not invest in a new airframe. The 737, launched in 1967, was designed to carry 85 passengers on a relatively short (max range 1500 nm or so) stage length.

A combination of massively stretching the air-frame, stretching the range, along with engines that are much, much larger, heavier, and bigger (due to larger fans for lower fuel burn) is a plane that wants to stick its nose up in the air and stall when in the air, and wants to put its tail down on the ground when at rest.

Now it may be nothing, but I have a nagging suspicion that Boeing has compromised fundamental characteristics of the original air-frame, so that it is not good rugged design any longer, and their efforts to fix what the air frame no longer naturally gives, via fly by wire fixes, is not working out so well.

Given that I am mostly airline agnostic at this point, and am willing to pay more to fly the airline that I want, and also that I love the A321, including its neo version, its a much nicer plane than the MAX, I am letting the precautionary principle come into play.

United does not currently own, lease, or operate the 737 MAX 8.

But they do have 14 MAX 9, which use the same system. You know what OP was trying to say, don't muddy the water just to be technically correct.

There is nothing to suggest that this problem is specific to the MAX8. The vast bulk of the flying hours so far on the variant are on the MAX8, since it was the first one released. If as is being suggested the issue relates to air-frame deficiencies and a poorly performing/executed fly-by wire system to try to make up for these deficiencies, then the problem will extend to the MAX9, which has the same basic systems. If anything, I would expect the flight performance of the MAX9 to be even more sub-optimal than the MAX8.

This is a very wise move by UA,^ and a stupid move by SWA if they stick with it. :td: This story is leading on nearly every media source today. Folks would would not know the difference between a 737 and an A320, or perhaps even the difference between a 737 and a A330 are suddenly paying attention....

AA told me via twitter the same WN is saying....