UA Polaris on 787ís

Old Jun 14, 22, 8:50 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: UA GS, Amex Centurion, UA 1MM
Posts: 520
I think Polaris on the 787 is great. Especially if you get an odd number row and traveling solo. One of the most private seats in J. Very comfortable. I am 5í10Ē. I respectfully and totally disagree with this OP.
and I notice little to no difference vs 777 or 767. But I like the atmosphere in a Dreamliner vs any other aircraft for sleep.
ll22949, leoo and Cthunder86 like this.
saccoNY is offline  
Old Jun 14, 22, 9:59 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,061
Originally Posted by artvandalay View Post
For some, inflight service has greater value than 2 cm of seat width.
NH is not the only carrier playing musical chairs with AC swaps or configurations.
Originally Posted by hirohito888 View Post
Yes but the fact that NH does not have enough reconfigured 77W with new J to reliably serve all their routes limits the options that the OP has. So for SFO-TYO, OP either has to stick with UA Polaris or fly on old NH J on 77W/787 or get lucky with an odd equipment swap.
I've seen NH swap out a planned new 77W for an old 77W on LAX/SFO-TYO (as in, the new seatmap was loaded for several months and within a day or two of travel the old seatmap was swapped in). Pre-Covid, only LHR, FRA, and JFK were guaranteed the new seats, so it's not surprising that LAX and SFO are the first to get shafted, but to say that NH doesn't do any aircraft swaps is inaccurate.

That said, if given the choice, I'd still take NH old J over Polaris when flying to Japan.
PACLipper likes this.
dkc192 is offline  
Old Jun 14, 22, 10:54 pm
  #18  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CT/NY
Programs: UA Platinum/1MM, AA PPro, Marriott LT Titanium, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 5,387
Originally Posted by IADdelayed View Post
That would be my guess too. I love the [odd numbered] Polaris seats (privacy!). In comparison to LH where there is zero privacy, not all aisle access, and a very uncomfortable footsie issue.

At 6' tall, I have no problems sleeping in the odd numbered Polaris seats. Haven't tried the even numbered seats; they do look rather tight and no real storage space. For the odd numbered seats, the entry opening makes a great place to put your backpack or other personal item.

Definitely noticed the width difference between the 78X seats vs the 772 and 77W though. The 78X may be "nicer" and have lower cabin pressure, but I'll take the old 772 anyday.
Agree on the narrowness of the 78X Polaris, but you should chime in on this thread if you think the old IPTE seats are better.: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ranscon-2.html
PTahCha is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 6:08 am
  #19  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 1A
Programs: UA GS, NH Diamond, Hyatt Lifetime Globalist (formerly Courtesy Card sadly), Amanjunkie, CLEAR
Posts: 3,647
Wow. Thanks to all for the thoughts. Iím shocked some of you like it so much. Definitely a better experience in the straight vs slanted seats but still doesnít compare to the new NH J, but valid points regarding equipment types and fuselage width. Makes sense. Just frustrating that there arenít better options available. Why do half the seats on the UA 787ís need to have zero privacy and tight constraints? Just seems like bad design to me. Give up some seats and get a much better experience but granted they are running a company for profit. Gone are the yonder years of amazing service and privacy. I look back on the ďnewĒ UA GF on 747ís and think it was FAR better. Such is the new normal these days I guess -> crap.
ainternational is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 6:43 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 240
I don't think anyone would argue that Polaris is a real upgrade over the old GF suites - but GF is gone and not coming back in the near future, so the real comparison is with the old ITPE business, which had far less privacy than even the least private Polaris seat now. As someone who's 6'2 and who only got to fly GF a couple of times, I'm extremely happy about the Polaris seats. If you were habitually flying first in the past then your loss is understandable.
ll22949 likes this.
mjg59 is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 7:16 am
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD/DCA/FLL/MIA
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, SQ*PPS, Hyatt*Globalist
Posts: 11,572
IMHO, United Polaris seats are great to sleep. This includes the PMUA IPTE and PMCO business First lie flat seats.

Despite my preference to fly OS and SQ, I cannot ever get comfortable in their business seats to have a good sleep.

I have done quite a few Transpac flights on Unitedís 788, 789 and 781, and have slept like a baby. NH not so much.
ll22949 likes this.
UA_Flyer is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 7:24 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: LAX IAH AMS
Programs: UA GS 1MM
Posts: 1,043
No seat is perfect. I prefer the previous seats for sleeping but like the privacy in the new seats. My knees take a beating when I sleep due to the narrow/low footwell and the tray table being placed where it is. Lots of 767 and 787 out there with polaris and the seats are narrow, for sure. I try and ride the 777 whenever possible.... but my knees still take a beating!
goodeats21 likes this.
avi8tir is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 7:55 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,238
Originally Posted by h2oflyboy View Post
The first rows in each cabin of Polaris do not have a slanted footwell - see United Flight Information (seatguru.com) while it is closer to the galleys and lavs it can be more comfortable for us stocky (not obese) travelers.
I always book the bulkhead seats for this reason. As far as NH goes, their lie flats in J are shorter than UA's on average. Their F is great. I just can't deal with the heat on NH flights.
ll22949, uanj, EWR764 and 1 others like this.
zombietooth is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 9:09 am
  #24  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, UA Gold, WN, Global Entry; +others wherever miles/points are found
Posts: 12,765
Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
I don't think anyone would argue that Polaris is a real upgrade over the old GF suites - but GF is gone and not coming back in the near future, so the real comparison is with the old ITPE business, which had far less privacy than even the least private Polaris seat now. As someone who's 6'2 and who only got to fly GF a couple of times, I'm extremely happy about the Polaris seats. If you were habitually flying first in the past then your loss is understandable.
IPTE First was definitely a superior seat to Polaris, but it also occupied a much bigger footprint and as you say is not coming back.

I haven't flown 787 Polaris, but having done it on the 777 and 767 I can't really imagine it's that much worse to justify the complaining.
findark is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 11:12 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: United Global Services, Amtrak Select Executive
Posts: 3,649
Originally Posted by findark View Post
IPTE First was definitely a superior seat to Polaris, but it also occupied a much bigger footprint and as you say is not coming back.

I haven't flown 787 Polaris, but having done it on the 777 and 767 I can't really imagine it's that much worse to justify the complaining.
Depending on how big a person is, a difference of even an inch could easily make a substantial difference in seat comfort for that individual. Like if your pants are exactly the correct waist size they are perfectly comfortable, but even a half-inch narrower, and they're torture.
physioprof is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 12:22 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 4,061
Originally Posted by avi8tir View Post
Lots of 767 and 787 out there with polaris and the seats are narrow, for sure. I try and ride the 777 whenever possible.... but my knees still take a beating!
This comment got me thinking...what are our impressions of footwell size (in non-bulkhead seats) and overall spaciousness (e.g., walkway width to aisle in odd rows) for 777 vs 767 vs 787 Polaris? I've done about an equal share in all three, and always thought that the 767 was closer to the 777 than the 787, but UA.com says that the seat widths are 22" for 777, 20.6" for 767, and 20.5" for 787. Of course, 767 and 787 seats having equal seat width doesn't mean that those other dimensions (especially footwell size) are equal, so curious to hear if others have done any more scientific observations.
dkc192 is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 12:55 pm
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, UA Gold, WN, Global Entry; +others wherever miles/points are found
Posts: 12,765
I find seat width numbers to be utterly meaningless, as there is no standard to what they measure.

In terms of overlay, Polaris is a staggered 2-4-2 overlaid onto 2-4-2 IPTE on a 777, and similarly 2-2-2 onto the same for a 76. Therefore, I would expect the 78s to be somewhat narrower - I remember I originally thought they might do a 2-3-2 Polaris instead.

In terms of anecdotes, I don't recall a major difference between the 777 and 767 flights I have had.
findark is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 3:00 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Haze gray and underway
Programs: UA 1K MM, HH Diamond, Marriott 'clink clink' Titanium
Posts: 1,680
$0.02. I can sleep almost anywhere and if the food looks better than domestic first I'm fine. That said I had a couple of dozen TPACs on a 777er before catching a few different flavors of Dreamliners and a couple 767s. I prefer the original and will re-route to catch one. Personally I believe that UA did a less than stellar job squeezing the Polaris seat into smaller aircraft.
bmwe92fan likes this.
Dublin_rfk is offline  
Old Jun 29, 22, 5:08 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA GS 1.5MM, AA 2MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 4,997
Originally Posted by Dublin_rfk View Post
$0.02. I can sleep almost anywhere and if the food looks better than domestic first I'm fine. That said I had a couple of dozen TPACs on a 777er before catching a few different flavors of Dreamliners and a couple 767s. I prefer the original and will re-route to catch one. Personally I believe that UA did a less than stellar job squeezing the Polaris seat into smaller aircraft.
+1 -- I much prefer the 777 and can definitely feel the difference in seats -- where the 787 wins is in cabin pressure and humidity. On my 777 / 767 flights of 8+ hours I will usually end up with a bloody nose (not running but bloody when you blow your nose) usually due to the dryness -- but this is much better with the 787. Since I am all three airplanes monthly I think that is the only way the 787 > 777. I really don't like the high J 767's that I fly to LHR all the time due to the FA service issues (not their fault) -- but that's not a Polaris thing its a staffing thing...
Dublin_rfk likes this.
bmwe92fan is offline  
Old Jun 30, 22, 7:36 am
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Programs: UA Silver, Hilton Gold, Marriott Titanium. Life: UA 540K mi., United & Admirals Clubs, Marr. Gold
Posts: 12,466
IPTE = International Premium Travel Experience (old UA business class seats, 8 across)
SPN Lifer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread