cesco.g

Reasonable analysis on both counts! ^

Bonehead

145s are an order of magnitude more comfortable than CR2s if you score an "A" seat.

UA_Flyer

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.

emcampbe

EWR764

It will be the 'real' Polaris seat (the pre-merger purchase contracts are complete, so no more old tech), though I fear it will be a tight squeeze on the 787.

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.

As for the E-170, the last one was delivered in 2015 and is essentially out of production. Embraer did not certify on the 170 some of the latest performance improvements incorporated in more recent 175s, such as the revised winglet design, and as noted above, the 175 length is viewed to be a more marketable size given its better conformance to 76-seat scope in the US.

In reality, UA only needs the CR7 for ASE (SUN/MMH too, but ASE is a much larger, more lucrative operation), so until Pitkin County revisits the wingspan restrictions, UA will need to keep enough CR7s on the UAX contract to support the service.

findark

I am quite surprised they did the (overlapped) 2-4-2 on the 787 with the Polaris seats rather than doing a 2-3-2 with a new geometry for the middle block, and am a little concerned about how well they will fit. There is a relatively poor track record of carriers trying to fit 777 designs into the 787 (I'm thinking the pretty awful NZ 787 cabin).

But I'm also soundly with jsloan that the current 2-2-2 cabin in the 787s is perfectly fine by me, and I would actually prefer it to the 77W if I am not traveling alone.

JDS747

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.

See article from Flight Global for additional info: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...175-sc-441489/

Currently, Skywest is flying E175-SCs for Delta and all they really did was remove six E- seats from the back of the aircraft.
https://www.delta.com/content/www/en...er-175-sc.html

EWR764

The issue is that going to a different geometry with solo center seats defeats the consistent density with the outgoing configuration, which is perhaps the main advantage of the design. Losing 1 seat for every 2 rows brings the product roughly to reverse herringbone density, if not slightly worse.

PsiFighter37

Well, the good thing is we will know about the 789 seat soon enough, as the 78J is going to have the same dimensions as the one going on that plane, and I think(?) UA gets their first one later this year.

mahasamatman

I wish they'd get rid of all the CR-200s before replacing the CR-7s.

PsiFighter37

I wonder why the regional carriers are/were incentivized to fly a definitively crappier plane vs. the E145, given they have the same number of seats...

mahasamatman

Maybe they just didn't want to pay for upgrade training, but United should force their hand.

Hipplewm

Agreed, but I am going by the press release - the E75 are replacing CR7, then maybe CR7 replace CR2 etc....

Kacee

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.

EWR764

Unfortunately not... with fuel back on the rise I don't see United continuing to grow the 50-seater fleet past what it has already committed to, but the current pilot contract necessitates this order to be a one-for-one replacement.