Originally Posted by
EWR764
Sort of, but since the aisle seats are angled, principles of geometry would dictate that achieving 1.5" of width reduction across the horizontal axis of the airplane would require slightly less than 1.5" width of the seat cushion as the passenger is oriented. It would be true of the window/center seats, though.
the 787 is 15" narrower than the 777, so Each "strip" of pairs of offset seats to use your term will need to be 3.75" narrower, that space can be taken in several ways by shifting it between the seats. For example, both footwells can be made narrower by 3.75" which in effect makes the seat shorter, but preserves the width at shoulder height. But if the footwell gets any more impacted (especially on the outboard seats where it appears to tapper) United is going to have the same problem they have on the 2 class 763s, where the seat is effectively only 5'11" to 6' long. That is a real problem, worst than narrow.
Regardless, United got in Polaris a slightly more dense design
by angling one of the seat, but that used up some of the width, by in effect turning it into length. That works on the 777 which is wider, not so well on the narrower 787.
On another point, you indicated above that each Polaris set was 90" of pitch, but I don't see how that can be, it has to be shorter, or there is no advantage to the design over day the Vantage XL, which is 90" for a set. Curious if you measured, or where your figure came from?
Originally Posted by
EWR764
There's only a finite amount of space in the cabin, and with a similar density, something has to give. My guess is the Delta footwells will be much deeper than United's, and the wall in front of the passenger (containing literature pocket, TV monitor) will be closer to the passenger than Polaris. There also will be a similar lack of storage space.
Delta's seat may indeed be more spacious than Polaris, but we aren't talking about the SQ Suites here. One thing I find is that United was attempting to strike a balance between a business class seat that resembles a private cocoon with a desire for a more open cabin concept. After market research, I don't think there was a clear winner of one over the over and enough passengers felt strongly enough about their respective preference that United felt it important to attempt to accommodate both.
After sampling the center and aisle seats, I found them as private as any business class product in full recline (around the head/shoulder area), but in a more upright position, you don't lose much of the openness of the cabin. I like that. The center seats will be pleasant for traveling as a couple, while at the same time preferable to the Solstys "honeymoon" seats in service with airlines like AB, AZ, EY, OZ etc., which cant slightly toward each other and do not have the same privacy divider as the UA Polaris spec. Finally, the window seats will be great for solo travelers, but I do not think the outboard armrest will be especially comfortable.
I have never seen a complaint about the Vantage XL footwells, and since they are a box, under the square table, there is no reason why they would be narrow. I think that is a big difference, especially on the Polaris outside seats where the foootwell is a triangle.
The Vantage XL has a slorage slot, big enough for a laptop, etc. Not a backpack, but bigger than a seat pocket.
I appreciate your speculation about market research and United "striking a balance between privacy and a more open cabin" but I have seen no reports of such research, and if someone at UA claimed they did such research, I would assume they were lying. There have been multiple interviews with the Acumen people in the trade press, and they all say the same thing, UA went to other suppliers and said they wanted direct isle access with the same density of their existing sCO seat, everyone said its impossible, and Acuman came up with this design. The first, second, third, fourth, and it appears only priority was keeping the same density.
Whether this was a good decision, time will tell. From my personal vantage point, United is putting in a second tier product (tighter than existing leading direct isle access seats like DL has and AA is adding) which just got relegated by Delta adopting the Vantage XL to third tier status. I assume UA is very nervious right now. The comments I posted above are not what one wants to be hearing from top tier customers. And I might add, the articles I have seen also compare the new DL seat very favorably to the Polaris seat. as an e.g.:
"The principal home competition on the routes these aircraft serve is likely to be the United Polaris seat, a version of the Zodiac Aerospace SkyLounge product, and American Airlines’ two outward-facing herringbone seats: Zodiac Cirrus on the Boeing 777-300ER and B/E Aerospace Super Diamond on the latest refit 777-200ER aircraft.
Delta would seem to have a firm advantage over United, but with the zero-sum issue there could well be a decent argument that American’s outward-facing herringbones offer a more consistent level of privacy and amenity throughout the cabin even without doors."
You don't want people to be saying this about your NEW hard product - before it has even been put into a single plane....
