Originally Posted by
spin88
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?
A-zone in the 777 has a max of about 360" longitudinally. United is arranging four seats linearly from about 1L/R to 2L/R. Overall, that's a product pitched at 90"... not 90" of bed length or legroom, but about 90" between the same points on seats in consecutive rows.
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.
I'm not saying it will be narrow, but deeper (think about thigh-depth). That might be fine for some, and uncomfortable for others. Matter of preference.
The aisle footwells, though triangular, are much larger than any existing UA business class seats.
The Vantage XL has a slorage slot, big enough for a laptop, etc. Not a backpack, but bigger than a seat pocket.
It's a literature pocket by design. If you want to put a tablet or small laptop in there, that's probably acceptable (though not rated for such storage during takeoff and landing). Neither Polaris nor the D1 suite will be very heavy on storage space. It's a compromise.
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, till 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.
The "speculation" is based on conversation with people at United at the Polaris event, and of course it would be you who is speculating that density was the
solitary concern in the development of the seat.
The concept I discuss (perception of open space vs. complete privacy) is not directly correlated to density. It's more of a design sensibility, such as the arrangement of privacy panels, height of walls, dimensions of seat shells, etc. My point (again, from actually sitting in the seat and reclining to full flat) is that the seat was designed to provide a more private sleeping environment while retaining some sense of openness in the cabin that is often lost in current-generation products (see, the "coffin effect"). This is confirmed by UA and contract reps that attend the events, and I think those who participated in the market research sessions can attest to that fact.
Polaris has flaws, no doubt. I've cited them as someone who has a bit of experience with the actual seat, and am not relying on drawings, renderings or my own preconceived notions to reach those conclusions. I attempted to be as objective as possible with my reviews of the seat, and my takeaway was that the seat is the least impressive aspect of the experience as-advertised. It's not because the seat is necessarily poor; to the contrary, I think it is a solid, competitive offering. I just think certain other aspects of the experience, as compared to AA/DL, are more impressive.
Delta's D1 Suite might be an objectively better hard product, but the point that is often ignored is that it will appear on a small minority of Delta's existing or on order fleet, at best, and will be several years before it even maxes out the current projection of aircraft to receive it. United realistically could reach the same number of aircraft re/configured with Polaris by the end of 2017. I'm not sure the "firm advantage" holds true with respect to the existing seats that will be flying alongside Polaris seats for years to come.
As always, one needs to choose the carrier which best meets their needs. United improves its value proposition relative to its competitors with this product, and that's important. The Polaris lounges, soft product, large cabins and a relatively fast-paced rollout to in-service 767s and 777s may be a compelling factor for a customer who has an issue with Delta's shrinking Asia connectivity and long horizon with current J hard products across the Atlantic. Again, a matter of preference.