Originally Posted by SwisherTown (Post 26754838)

Munoz became CEO when Smisek left in September of last year.
Munoz had heart replacement surgery in October.

All this stuff was already in the pipe.

Not saying Munoz isn't more customer oriented/savvy than Smisek but we would have had the smiling Jeff every loves making the announcement if it weren't for that little thing with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 26759990)

Yeah it's hard to see the prior regime signing on for PJs, more money for food, or the fancy bedding.

Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz (Post 26760046)

Agree but the highest cost associated with this - the seat - was undoubtedly locked by the time Oscar came in. It shows - by far the most dense all-aisle access J product out there. It has Jeff & his former CFO written all over it.

Originally Posted by minnyfly (Post 26760554)

People are confusing "density" with "efficiency". The Polaris product is highly space-efficient. There's a lot of wasted space in other designs, and this serves no one--neither the customer nor airline. This has the high potential of being win-win for the customer and airline. Efficiency is what we should be hopeful for.

Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 26760577)

Personal space is the ultimate luxury on an aircraft. Increased density = decreased personal space. There is simply no avoiding that equation.

Originally Posted by minnyfly (Post 26760596)

That equation is simply not true, particularly in business cabins. Personal space is significantly independent of density. That's why some airlines have moved past herringbone configurations. There's more efficiency to be found.

Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 26760625)

Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

More people in the same space may be more efficient but it is also higher density. That's just basic physics.

I've flown virtually all the major configurations in J, and it is precisely what you describe as the "inefficiency" of reverse herringbone which makes it more appealing than virtually any other J configuration. From the passenger's perspective less seats in the same space = better. That's the main reason that UA GF is "better" than UA BF.

Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 26760625)

Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

More people in the same space may be more efficient but it is also higher density. That's just basic physics.

I've flown virtually all the major configurations in J, and it is precisely what you describe as the "inefficiency" of reverse herringbone which makes it more appealing than virtually any other J configuration. From the passenger's perspective less seats in the same space = better. That's the main reason that UA GF is "better" than UA BF.

Originally Posted by minnyfly (Post 26760596)

That equation is simply not true, particularly in business cabins. Personal space is significantly independent of density. That's why some airlines have moved past herringbone configurations. There's more efficiency to be found.

Originally Posted by minnyfly (Post 26760751)

Efficiency is what matters to the customer and is the positive term.

Originally Posted by UASleeper (Post 26756871)

Interesting points. I find it hard to believe that after "12,000 hours of research" and -granted only limited- secret customer feedback UA needs additional customer feedback once Polaris is rolled out on the first three 773 before it finalizes plans and decides to continue with the roll out the new seat. Especially if they haven't figured out yet how to fit The seats into the 787-8/9 ( but then again they seem to have solved that problem with the 787-10). I haven't the conversion plan in this light until now. If tit's rue, it would mean a hastily prepared and maybe not so thought through rush into the seat conversion despite three years of planning. Or at least utter insecurity about how the Polaris product will be received by its customers. If that's the case, the mostly positive feedback on what's available on paper should give UA it's much needed self esteem.

Do you have a link to the sketches for the 787 LOPA?

Originally Posted by UASleeper (Post 26752487)

While I am agreeing with you in general, I think UA is trying to refit those planes first that have the worst seats, i.e. the pmUA backwards facing narrower 2-4-2 "business" class seats. The new 787-8/9 all have the diamond seats. Also, it seems as if UA is still trying to figure out how to fit Polaris into the 787-8/9. Although they seem to have figured it out for the 787-10. That is still the one part that confuses me as the width of the fuselage of any 787 should be the same or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by LDVFlyer (Post 26760788)

That efficiency always comes at the expense of something.

From the looks of it, Polaris sacrificed workspace, footwells, armrests, perhaps even structural stability for density.

Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 26760795)

Passengers care about space and comfort. When airlines start talking about enhancing "efficiency," passenger discomfort pretty much inevitably results.

Originally Posted by minnyfly (Post 26760751)

In that case "high density" is also an upgrade for the customer.

Originally Posted by halls120 (Post 26761178)

How can high density ever be good for the customer? Simple math says the more seats you cram into a fixed area, the less space per seat is the inevitable result. Unless, of course, you've found a way to defy the laws of physics.