Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

787-8/9 Polaris/Premium Plus retrofit configurations

787-8/9 Polaris/Premium Plus retrofit configurations

Old Jul 19, 19, 8:22 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA Plat, HH Diamond, MR Gold
Posts: 1,090
I don't understand why that middle E+ row on the 788 is two rows behind E- rows. Why couldn't they just stick it behind the rest of E+? Also, not counting the exit rows, there are only 5 E+ window seats on the 788. As a window seat flier, that sucks.
coolbeans202 is offline  
Old Jul 19, 19, 8:29 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SFO, SJC when UA has a flight there
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by coolbeans202 View Post
I don't understand why that middle E+ row on the 788 is two rows behind E- rows. Why couldn't they just stick it behind the rest of E+?
Could it be a crossover point? There’s a similar one on the Polaris 767.
JAaronT is online now  
Old Jul 19, 19, 9:27 am
  #63  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DCA/IAD/MIA/FLL/PBI
Programs: UA Lifetime GS, SQ*PPS
Posts: 10,371
Interesting and disappointing to see cutting back the number of J seats in 788. I think I fly the 788 most based on my monthly roundtrip commune between IAD and PEK. I often counter a full J cabin within 2 to 5 days of departure and have to route through ORD or EWR to purchase a J seat.

Perhaps it is an inventory management issue that they clear the upgrades too early. When I purchase Y seats and upgrade in advance, I have never had any problem clearing upgrades.

I do wonder whether 788 will be replacing 752 on PS routes since both will have the same number of J seats..... too much of an airplane perhaps to do transcon, but 788 is horrible for international routes with the small J cabin.

Last edited by UA_Flyer; Jul 20, 19 at 4:02 am
UA_Flyer is offline  
Old Jul 20, 19, 12:48 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: KSFO/KSQL
Programs: UA Plat, 0.8MM; PPL
Posts: 664
This was inevitable.

I have gotten my own row in E+ on TPACS way too many times. Including on SFO-SYD.
sincx is offline  
Old Jul 21, 19, 10:56 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA 1K 2MM; Marriott Platinum; IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,077
I agree with you.
How do you feel when the E+ section is fully packed while there are lots of empty middle seats in E section after the retrofit?
Kmxu is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 11:47 pm
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 726
So I'm looking at the seating diagrams:

For the 788, there is indeed a loss of J, however if you consider PE to be a premium cabin, there is actually a net of 13 premium seats, or put differently, 13 seats seats that are tollerable for an ULH flight. Granted, most of the PE cabin is ex J real estate, and the reduction of E+ is more attributed to the increase in Y.

For the 789, The current J capacity is retained plus an additional 21 PE seats, makes for 21 additional tollerable seats. However the E+ cabin was gutted for PE and some additonal Y seats.

Being a kettle myself, I'm not familar with the ins and outs of the upgrades and can't measure if the benefits outweight the cost of limited E+ seats for elites, however the general consensus (based of of FT posts) seems to be that E+ is still sub-par for these long trips.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old Jul 22, 19, 11:53 pm
  #67  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 39,370
Originally Posted by phkc070408 View Post

Being a kettle myself, I'm not familar with the ins and outs of the upgrades and can't measure if the benefits outweight the cost of limited E+ seats for elites, however the general consensus (based of of FT posts) seems to be that E+ is still sub-par for these long trips.
an E+ seat in a 10 wide configuration is just barely better than than an E- seat on a TPAC or TATL. I'm booking away from any UA long haul flight if I can't get a PP or Polaris seat.
halls120 is online now  
Old Jul 23, 19, 12:28 am
  #68  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 726
Originally Posted by halls120 View Post
an E+ seat in a 10 wide configuration is just barely better than than an E- seat on a TPAC or TATL. I'm booking away from any UA long haul flight if I can't get a PP or Polaris seat.
Keep in mind I'm talking about the 9 across on a 787, but that is just as pathetic from what I gather, so your point is valid.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old Jul 23, 19, 1:01 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,848
Originally Posted by phkc070408 View Post
if you consider PE to be a premium cabin, there is actually a net of 13 premium seats, or put differently, 13 seats seats that are tollerable for an ULH flight.
That's going to be an individual decision, of course. I've seen the P+ seats but haven't flown in them. While they are undeniably a step up from E+, I'm not sure how premium they actually are. I just don't think there's enough space for them to be comfortable for a long period of time. The comparison that people make is domestic F, but domestic F isn't all that roomy once the person in front of you reclines...
jsloan is offline  
Old Jul 23, 19, 1:22 am
  #70  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 726
Originally Posted by jsloan View Post
That's going to be an individual decision, of course. I've seen the P+ seats but haven't flown in them. While they are undeniably a step up from E+, I'm not sure how premium they actually are. I just don't think there's enough space for them to be comfortable for a long period of time. The comparison that people make is domestic F, but domestic F isn't all that roomy once the person in front of you reclines...
I definitely agree that 1. it is an individual decision, and 2. There are some space issues if comparing it to Domestic F.

Being 1 data point, while not as ideal as J, I could sit in a Domestic F seat for 16 hours if I had to and not be totally miserable. I wouldn't even consider a Y, or even a Y+ seat for that length of time. That said, for me, there is a net increase in inventory on both aircraft for me.
jsloan likes this.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 19, 4:11 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 9,652
Originally Posted by findark View Post
It does seem interesting they are cutting the 788 to such a high-density configuration... not sure what the target routes might be. If they had an eye on replacing 767s on EWR/IAD-HNL then I don't think they would put PE on the frames, but maybe they could be seen on some of the East Coast routes seeing 77G today?
The low J-numbers on the 788 seems to be the end for that bird on the SFO-ZRH route. Due to its healthy J-loads looking forward to this becoming a 789 route.
cesco.g is offline  
Old Aug 1, 19, 12:55 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 726
While I'm sure UA has already figured that out, I wonder what the weight difference is of both empty and full cabins of before and after versions, and how range is affected. Even if the weight empty is roughly equal, higher density means more passengers / baggage. Since UA has been known to push the range limit of their planes, I'm curious if there will be any issues.

IIRC, the sCO 772 was pushed to the limit with the EWR-HKG route, but since that is now a 77W, we can NOT prove that adding capacity DOES cuts range.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old Aug 1, 19, 4:06 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G; Le Club Accor Platinum; Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Hertz PC
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by phkc070408 View Post
While I'm sure UA has already figured that out, I wonder what the weight difference is of both empty and full cabins of before and after versions, and how range is affected. Even if the weight empty is roughly equal, higher density means more passengers / baggage. Since UA has been known to push the range limit of their planes, I'm curious if there will be any issues.

IIRC, the sCO 772 was pushed to the limit with the EWR-HKG route, but since that is now a 77W, we can NOT prove that adding capacity DOES cuts range.
The 77W has much more powerful engines than the 772, which explains why it can fly EWR-HKG despite being heavier. If it were the same engines, it wouldn't make it.
PsiFighter37 is offline  
Old Aug 1, 19, 8:43 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Delaware
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, Amtrak Guest Rewards
Posts: 726
Originally Posted by PsiFighter37 View Post
The 77W has much more powerful engines than the 772, which explains why it can fly EWR-HKG despite being heavier. If it were the same engines, it wouldn't make it.
I totally agree, but since they aren't using the Polaris GE 772 on the route, we can't compare the range of the sCO 772 to the Polaris GE 772. My purpose was to compare how the range of an aircraft is affected with the added seating capacity.

Since the 77W is now used on EWR-HKG, we are comparing Apples to Oranges.
phkc070408 is offline  
Old Aug 2, 19, 5:26 am
  #75  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K, *G, 1MM
Posts: 1,785
I am eagerly waiting for PP on SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD. Know it is towards the end of the retrofits but E+ is hard on that route and the upgrades to Polaris are unicorns (for the most part). I have been choosing NZ for PE to SYD so looking forward to finally getting UA PP on the SYD routes on the 787.
Aussienarelle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread