UA Orders 25 E175s and 4 B789s
Jul 16, 2018, 7:10 pm
#46
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA 1K & 2MM, Bonvoy Titanium & LTP, HH Gold, Accor Silver, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 2,350
I think it depends on how you configure. The 763 went from 2-2-2 to 1-1-1 and people love it. The NH 789 is 1-2-1 and just fine IMO.
I'm not sure that's a consensus view.
I really don't like the UA 789s and will take the 77W 10 times out of 10. 1 million times out of a million.
I'm not sure that's a consensus view.
I really don't like the UA 789s and will take the 77W 10 times out of 10. 1 million times out of a million.
I'm also happy with the UA 789 if and only if I have a bulkhead. I'd take a 77W true window or bulkhead above it, but I make no effort to avoid it.
I agree, as far as the ones I have experienced, UA's Polaris seats may be the tightest. I guess it is trying to achieve the balance between providing enough J seats for upgraders vs paying passengers. If UA choose a more spacious configuration, then the forum will be flooded with people complaining lack of upgrade space and UA is deserting its loyal customers.
On 1-2-1 configuration on the 787, the ones I have been on AC, NH, TG and SQ. All are spacious and I have great experience flying them. I particularly like the Air Canada and Singapore 787 seats and configuration. I have never been a fan of NH seats, but the configuration is spacious. TG is fine and definitely more spacious than Polaris. Of course, none of these airlines are as generous UA in terms of the number of J seats.
I have flown more on UA 787 this year than last year (mostly 77W). On certain routes, I prefer more privacy of the 77W. As far as comfort is concerned, 787 center bulkhead J seats is the better choice.
On 1-2-1 configuration on the 787, the ones I have been on AC, NH, TG and SQ. All are spacious and I have great experience flying them. I particularly like the Air Canada and Singapore 787 seats and configuration. I have never been a fan of NH seats, but the configuration is spacious. TG is fine and definitely more spacious than Polaris. Of course, none of these airlines are as generous UA in terms of the number of J seats.
I have flown more on UA 787 this year than last year (mostly 77W). On certain routes, I prefer more privacy of the 77W. As far as comfort is concerned, 787 center bulkhead J seats is the better choice.
I'm with you here. But I was also fine with the 2-4-2 on the lower deck of the 747, especially in a rear facing window. Slept beautifully in those. Comfortable, long enough, and no obstructions anywhere near my knees or shins. That's what matters. Love the TK seat too - sad to hear that they're looking to upgrade, because I'm certain it will get worse. Direct aisle access at the cost of a nice bed is never worth it in my book.
Jul 16, 2018, 7:15 pm
#47
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,461
Jul 16, 2018, 7:20 pm
#48
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, UA Gold, Marriott LTT, Avis President's Club
Posts: 1,539
This is a great example why there's no correct answer to "what's the best seat?" Different people just have different priorities. Direct aisle is #1 consideration for me.
Jul 16, 2018, 8:39 pm
#49
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Purely for seat comfort, I would go with the IPTE seat. But personally, I'm willing to trade a little comfort for privacy on a long haul, and given the privacy advantages, the Polaris seat is still comfortable enough for me to choose it - by a wide margin - over either IPTE or the B/E Diamond seat. Also, while the Polaris seat itself is a little tight on width, I find the layout, with nice shelves to both sides, by far the most convenient for spreading stuff out of any seat in the UA fleet since they retired the 744s.
Jul 16, 2018, 8:43 pm
#50
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
I agree, I like the Polaris seat better than either the Diamond or the IPTE seat. But we are talking putting the same 1-2-1 configuration as in the 77W/772 into an A/C that is 15" narrower. The seat map for the 787-10 shows this. So the seats are going to have 3.75" less in width per seat. They could try to change the geometry to get a little more width out of the seat (changing the angle; but at a cost of needing more pitch) but no way they get an extra 3.75" out of the design with that much less width. Again, perhaps an extra 1" or 2". So ask yourself how you are going to feel on a 12-14 hour flight on a 3-4" less wide version of the Polaris seat. That is the direction that UA is going....
Jul 16, 2018, 9:43 pm
#51
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: UAMP Global Services, AA Platinum
Posts: 89
I agree, I like the Polaris seat better than either the Diamond or the IPTE seat. But we are talking putting the same 1-2-1 configuration as in the 77W/772 into an A/C that is 15" narrower. The seat map for the 787-10 shows this. So the seats are going to have 3.75" less in width per seat. They could try to change the geometry to get a little more width out of the seat (changing the angle; but at a cost of needing more pitch) but no way they get an extra 3.75" out of the design with that much less width. Again, perhaps an extra 1" or 2". So ask yourself how you are going to feel on a 12-14 hour flight on a 3-4" less wide version of the Polaris seat. That is the direction that UA is going....
Even United would not press its luck that much.
Jul 16, 2018, 10:43 pm
#52
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA 1K & 2MM, Bonvoy Titanium & LTP, HH Gold, Accor Silver, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 2,350
This is a great example why there's no correct answer to "what's the best seat?" Different people just have different priorities. Direct aisle is #1 consideration for me.
Jul 16, 2018, 10:44 pm
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,461
That's what I would expect. Same way they "squeezed" the same 2-2-2 configuration from the sCO 772 into a 788/9. That is a direct analog to moving the 77W's 1-2-1 to the 788/9/10. A slight reduction in seat width (from 22" on the 772 to 20.6" on the 788/9 according to UA), but mostly accomplished with geometry.
Jul 17, 2018, 6:19 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,890
the only difference between the DL and UA config that I can see is DL has 12 C+ seats and 52 Y, while UA has 16 E+ and 48 Y. F is the same. This pretty much is like other aircraft, where UA has more E+ than DL C+ on similar size aircraft, in some cases, significantly so. Especially if there are are only going to be 70 seats, what’s the point in having more seats with less pitch?
Some of the earlier CRJ-700s are beginning to come off lease and rather than replace them with new CRJ products (the Atmosphere interior is nice, but the its same fuselage as the rest of the CRJs), UA is acquiring more E75s. The current pilot contract limits the number of 76-seaters UA may operate, and it's already at that ceiling. When Delta was in a similar situation last year, Embraer developed a special variant, the E-175SC, which, on paper, is a 70-seater. This allows an operator to replace CR7s, at 70 seats, on a one-for-one basis with an airplane that is fundamentally an E-175. The E-175SC can be converted to a 76-seater with the purchase of a service bulletin from Embraer if UA secures scope relief from the pilots or inducts a new small narrowbody type to trigger more permissible 76-seat frames. In service, the airplane has only 70 seats.
United and Delta are both scoped out on 76 seat aircraft so neither can have any more in their fleets at the moment. Embraer compensated for this by creating an E175-SC with 70 seats but can be easily converted to a 76 seat aircraft down the road if scope limits change or if other contract requirements are met to add large RJs. That is the big benefit the carriers see with adding the E175-SC. They can easily convert them to 76 seats if scope changes or if they add a new mainline narrow body aircraft.
Just curious if if there is technical differences with 6 seats missing in the back - is there a big design change for that. It sounds like it’s changeable to transition to a regular E75 (for a price of course). But did they, for example, have to change something technically to adjust for any weight/balance differences with no seats and 6 less people in the back, etc.
With 70 seats, both these aircraft have the same number of seats as CR7s, so they could serve similar markets. But I’d guess UA will want to use the new E75s in markets that have a higher premium demand, with the higher F count. Though as I said, where I’ve flown them, there tends to be a lot of CPUs.
Jul 17, 2018, 6:33 am
#55
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Just curious if if there is technical differences with 6 seats missing in the back - is there a big design change for that. It sounds like it’s changeable to transition to a regular E75 (for a price of course). But did they, for example, have to change something technically to adjust for any weight/balance differences with no seats and 6 less people in the back, etc.
It's just paperwork. They can be converted to 76-seaters with some software and certification updates in accordance with a service bulletin Embraer sells.
Jul 17, 2018, 7:58 am
#56
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: UA MileagePlus 2MM
Posts: 1,567
I flew alone on a 763 from AMS to EWR with the new Polaris seats and much prefer it to the current 763 layout even with no Global First. The seat is just so much more private and I was in the center section with a stranger beside me. I can't even remember if the divider was up but the 1-2-1 is just so much better. I have also flown the 77W several times with my SO and we love it. sCo 2-2-2 in Polaris is OK, I have yet to fly a Dreamliner but assume with 2-2-2 in Polaris it would be great. The 2-4-2 on the pmUA 772 is awful, and as someone else mentioned upthread not so bad on the 744. The seat is the most important part of the onboard experience to me. And United is (slowly quickening up the Polaris seat installation process) so hopefully this will be a happier forum for premium fliers. Economy, on the other hand, seems like it is going the other way. Many possible suspects to blame for that!
Jul 17, 2018, 9:22 am
#57
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ORD/IND
Programs: UA Platinum, Avis Preferred, Hertz PC, Hyatt Discoverist , Marriott Titanium
Posts: 742
Like EWR764 mentioned CR7s can't replace the CR2s as United is maxed out on both 70 and 76 seat aircraft. The only way United can add more is to negotiate an adjustment to the pilot contract, or add a new mainline narrow body (A220 or E190/195) to their fleet. I don't think the pilots are very interested in having a discussion about it as they have already stated there is a way for United to add more large RJs in the current contract, and that way is to add A220s or E190/195s to mainline.
