For months, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has been hinting about a big new announcement this year and we now have a better idea of what it will be: a new Polaris business class seat and ultra-premium configuration on the Boeing 787-9.
Coming Soon: Premium-Heavy United Airlines 787-9 With New Business Class Seats
A new business class seat has been rumored for years on United, but the carrier has remained tight-lipped about its plans. But recently, information has been leaking out and we now know that the new 787-9 will have a premium-heavy configuration including:
- 64 Polaris business class seats
- 16 rows in a 1-2-1 configuration
- Eight of those seats will be designated “Business Class Plus” (the bulkhead seats in rows 1 and 9) and have extra room
- 35 Premium Plus premium economy seats
- five rows in a 2-3-2 configuration
- 123 economy seats
- 15 rows in a 3-3-3 configuration
- 39 will be Economy Plus (extra legroom) seats
United has also hinted at a premium business class product in customer surveys and focus groups.
> Read More: United Airlines Considering Polaris Plus Cabin With “Press For Champagne” Button
> Read More: United Airlines Offers More Insight On “Polaris Plus” Product
I tend to trust whatever Jon NYC shares, though I went a step further and asked my contacts at United to verify and indeed, this configuration is not just a rumor. Flight attendants have been introduced to the new 787-9, dubbed 78L, and briefed on features including:
- doors, which must remain in an open and locked position for takeoff and landing
- suites with ottomans will have a second seatbelt on the ottoman and three oxygen masks
- business class will be divided into cabins, each with 32 seats (eight rows of 1-2-1 seating)
- the forward business class cabin will feature a reverse herringbone layout (window seats facing the window and cetner seats facing each other) while the rear business class cabin will have reverse herringbone window seats but the center section seats will be herringbone (face away from each other toward the aisles)
- two types of seat belts; a buckle-type seat belt in economy and a push-to-release type in Polaris
- new seats on the 78L will include wireless charging pads
I have now personally seen the LOPA (seat map)…though not the seat itself. Thus, the 78L is 100% confirmed and, unlike Lufthansa introducing its new Allegris business class products years before it debuted, my hunch is that United is going more ANA or Air France-style on this and will introduce the product as it debuts, as early as next month.
The new seat comes as American Airlines prepares to introduce its brand new business class seat on its 787-9 in the weeks ahead.
Jon NYC adds that though the doors will be present, flight attendant staffing disputes may torpedo their use, at least for now. United and its flight attendants seemingly remain far apart on a new contract.
These aircraft may represent a replacement for United’s aging 767-300 fleet and it appears United will utilize the Adient Ascent, as we see on Qatar Airways and Hawaiian Airlines.
United Must Avoid The Lufthansa Problem
Lufthansa is just a hot mess right now, made worse by the fact that is now has so many business class products. There’s Allegris, there’s the “old” Lufthansa business class seat, there’s the ex-Philippine Airlines A350 seats, and there’s the ex-Hainan 787 seats…the standardization is gone.
One thing that United has going for it now is a standardized Polaris product across its 767, 777, and 787 longhaul fleet. You know what you are going to get when you fly United, which is not an industry-leading seat, but a seat I find very comfortable.
United must guard expectations closely as it markets its new suite… something it did not do a great job of a decade ago when it unveiled Polaris, when almost all of its flights had older eight-across seating in business class on the United side and 2-2-2 seating on the Continental Airlines side.
CONCLUSION
United will shortly be debuting a new premium variant of its 787-9 with a new business class seat featuring doors and wireless charging. The timeline for the debut is yet unknown, though the new aircraft will have a whopping 64 business class seats. With American Airlines debuting new seats on its 787-9, the competitive pressure is on to offer a leading product as premium cabin demand shows no signs of slowing down during this time of economic uncertainty.
I don’t think the issue is how the AFA wants to staff those aircraft but what the FAA will require. They have taken a pretty strong position on flight attendant staffing on aircraft with doors at seats, requiring an additional FA above minimum staffing levels between every set of aircraft doors where there are suites with doors present.
With only 222 seats, UA will already have an overstaffed aircraft by going with just FAA minimum staffing. Add the requirement for an extra FA between every set of doors where suites exist and UA’s FA count on the plane could be much higher than justified for the number of seats.
The amount of staffing does affect how many FAs can be on break since there is also a level of minimum staffing on duty in the cabin even in flight.
B6 ended up locking the doors of their Mint cabins open because they don’t want to add more FAs
DL has suites with doors for a decade now and doesn’t seem to have any problem with the FAA’s requirements.
and UA is also pushing the number of seats down in order to be able to operate the 787 on routes which the current aircraft cannot operate w/o significantly blocking seats.
It is doubtful that UA can get the revenue on a 17 hour flight with 222 seats to offset US labor rates.
let’s see where this ends up but I wouldn’t call it a done deal just yet.
This configuration has a minimum crew of 8 compared to the rest of the 787 fleet with a minimum crew of 7 so I am sure UA has already taken this into account.
including the FAA requirement for an extra FA for every cabin where suites are present?
that is the requirement they made of B6
Yes. UA’s current 787-9 configuration with more pax has a minimum crew of 7 compared to this configuration which has a minimum crew of 8. Considering there are fewer pax on the exact same variant but a higher minimum crew you have to assume the extra is for the suite doors.
ex philippine airlines.. a350 seats 😀
I’d have went with 60J and 36J, giving O a couple 2-4 inches of additioonal pitch to create an industry leading product
Given how J now has de facto CPUs due to an overselling of O, I’d have went with more O seats to avoid freebies
I think it’s pretty wild that only 38% of the seats on these aircraft will be regular economy.
Goes to United’s push to cater to premium travelers (see WSJ article today), but I wonder what long-term pressure this will put on price points of every class of service.
I presume you mean this article
“United Airlines Leans on Wealthier Travelers Through Choppy Demand” which was published on 4/17. If not can you provide the article name or link?
the 78L not only adds even more business class seats and slightly more premium economy seats but it also allows the 787 to compete on longer haul routes potentially including EWR-BOM and LAX-SIN that the current 787s cannot fly. Whether Boeing is actually increasing the maximum takeoff weight (which has been rumored for years) or UA is just reducing the number of seats, the 78L configuration will have one of the lowest number of seats on a long haul widebody other than ANA and JAL’s super premium widebodies – which have and will continue to have a higher quality product than UA will have with its 78L.
and it is very likely that the level of premium demand UA is planning is sustainable. US carriers have higher labor costs and, if there is that kind of premium demand, other airlines with lower labor costs – such as Asian carriers – will add capacity – as well as carriers that DL that will use more cost efficient aircraft including with fewer premium seats where they can command higher premiums and still carry more revenue solely because of having more total seats on the aircraft.
yes, UA probably does think it can support that many seats but seating configurations last for much longer than current demand periods.
Pulling 40 seats off of UA’s current 789 configurations to add 16 more business class seats seems like a risk that will probably not pay off over time.
correction
and it is very likely that the level of premium demand UA is planning is NOT sustainable
Oh Tim will you ever STFU? This isn’t about Delta.
Irrespective of his BS, this is a great move for UAL and will continue to keep them ahead of AA/Delta and the only member of the US3 I fly. Thanks for reporting this.
FWIW I read the WSJ article this AM too; UAL is on the right path IMO.
Nice job United. It pains me that I chase AA status given the relative ease of earning LPs. If United fully copied the program I’d switch to them
Not sure why my earlier comment was not posted (I could be my fault admittedly) but this is a post about UAL- not Delta. Our newest visitor doesn’t get that and continues to annoy.
At any rate this is great for UAL and bad for AA/Delta. The latter has a business class that varies from plane to plane and whatever else suits them the best. You don’t know what you’re going to get- except ripped off in one way or another.
first,
adding doors to aircraft seats IS a big deal according to the FAA.
DL has been doing it for a decade and apparently staffs sufficiently to meet the FAA requirements.
B6 did it on Mint and wasn’t willing to add the extra FA so has the doors locked open.
AA has an open request to the FAA to reduce minimum staffing on their 789s.
and second, the FAA does not negotiate labor contracts which specify how many FAs can rest at one time.
It is still very possible that an airline can meet FAA minimum staffing for takeoff and landing and that half of the FA crew cannot go on break at the same time because there are also FAA minimum staffing requirements during the flight as well.
I have mentioned DL no more than any other airline that has doors or has plans to add doors.
and, let’s be clear that UA will be the last of the the big 3 to have doors on suites and their 321XLRs will likely be the first aircraft in their fleet with doors on suites.
The uninformed speculation from non-FAs about FARs and SOP makes me laugh…cabin coverage is just fine for crew rest breaks currently with a minimum crew of seven. With 8 there will be no issue with half of the crew going on break at once. Not sure why you think UA is less capable of staffing an aircraft than DL.
thanks for the confirmation that FAA minimum staffing is 7 f0r UA’s current 789s and will be 8 for the 78Ls. AA is asking for FAA minimum staffing of 7 on their high J 789s which also have suites in two “cabins” between 3 sets of doors.
I have never been on a DL 339 or 350 with less than 8 FAs and usually more than that – and the point in even having this discussion is that there reach a point where the number of FAs bumps up against the minimum staffing for the aircraft plus the extra FA for door suite “monitor” which the FAA requires.
and if FAA minimum staffing is 7, is UA allowed to leave only 3 FAs in the cabin in-flight? if not, then you cannot split the crew in half for breaks which I suspect is why the AFA is objecting to this new configuration.
and if it all comes down to just union negotiation holding up anything new, then it says that UA is on the verge of agreeing to a new contract proposal – which will raise UA’s costs by a couple hundred million dollars/year and also require at least a half billion in retro pay unless the AFA gets bulldozed by mgmt.
and I still am not convinced that aircraft configurations with this high of a percentage of business class seats are economically viable long-term for US airlines esp. over the Pacific. (and the same is true of AA’s high J configuration on their 77Ws and 78Ps). US airlines have the highest labor costs in the world and the Pacific has been the least sustainably profitable for US airlines. If there really is that much high value demand, foreign airlines are in a far better position to undercut business class pricing and carriers like DL (and likely AS) will not offer more total seats which requires less discounting and higher revenue which has historically been a more profitable formula for US airlines.
For those that have access to DOT data, DL consistently gets more total revenue than AA or UA on routes where they directly compete or on routes which are closely comparable.
it’s hard for some US airlines to argue about why they need to upgauge domestic flights because there are better economics of using an aircraft w/ more seats but the same principle does not apply to international.
High premium niche configurations have never been sustainable for US airlines.
Just wanted to add that FAA minimum staffing levels is not necessarily the amount of FAs that operate a flight. There are staffing guidelines for international flights based on the load and other factors and most international flights are not going out with just FAA minimum crew. For example the FAA minimum crew on the high J 767 is only 5 but it is usually staffed with 7 for international flights.
I am not aware of the any objection to this configuration from the AFA. I’m not sure where anyone is getting this from. I don’t think union negotiations are holding up anything because this aircraft is already loaded into FA manuals, and UA has introduced a new aircraft TYPE during union negotiations (A321neo). I don’t see how a new configuration will present any hold up on the union front.
3 FAs is sufficient cabin coverage during crew rest breaks.
I know that few airlines staff their aircraft – esp. longhaul aircraft – at minimum staffing and they do so because they can’t afford to have to cancel a flight if a crew member or two gets sick.
To be clear, no airline – certainly not US airlines – would put any FAs on their aircraft if they could get by with it.
Meals are a byproduct of the long flight time but they could be served lots of different ways if there were fewer flight attendants.
and another site does state that there is a conflict with the AFA over staffing the 78L.
and let’s also be clear that the 78P for AA came about because AA needed the range on the 787 to do routes which their current configuration – which is dense than UA’s – can do.
and both are very fearful that DL could decide to get serious about ULH flying. The 350 is simply a more capable ULH aircraft and can move more people in a more cost efficient manner over a longer distance. DL seems to be focusing on putting its newest and most capable and lowest density 359s on its longest ICN routes and also to S. Africa. DL has said that the 35K will allow them to grow (regrow) further down the Pacific Rim even though the 359 could fly those routes now; other airlines are doing just about anything DL could attempt, sometimes w/ less capable 350s than DL’s newest versions.
the combination of aircraft economics and premium passenger demand is not fixed for near as long as aircraft configurations last.
I have never believed that the current level of international premium demand will last for US carriers. It never has before.
DL is much less focused on jumping in on fads as it is on building a sustainable network for the long term. DL has done the opportunistic int’l flying phase.
AA is not really a good candidate for ULH flying because it doesn’t get the premium demand that DL and UA get but does it such as to Australia because it has to.
UA consistently sees rainbows and takes risks including in building its network.
you and others are free to view differently but I think UA will end up w/ too many Polaris seats on many of its aircraft in a few years, perhaps even before the 78L enters service.
Oops my comment was posted- thank you Matthew!!
I just need United to get me from Houston to a city serviced by SWISS. They serve no other purpose. Unless you’re not paying for it why fly United Polaris ? Oh yeah that’s right. 95% percent of y’ll don’t purchase cash tickets.
to quote the former F1 commentator, James Hunt
“All I’ll say to that is Bulls**t”
The LOPA baffles me in Polaris, especially the middle seats changing. What I do like is that if counted correctly, we’re seeing an addition of 1 lavatory to the cabin. Contrary to AA who not just increased capacity on their 77W, but also reduced lavatory count
I hope Kirby learned from his time at AA when he and the other top brass thought that doing a tape-on-the-ground mockup – I suspect with folding chairs – was plenty sufficient.
As to the FA’s, Kirby says that united is the best airline in the history of the world so surely the people dealing the most with passengers are a huge part of that and deserve to paid in accordance with that fact.
Any idea which routes it’ll start off with? This and the addition of HK to BKk is helping to make up for the latest 1K requirements
Why the difference in layout between the two business cabins? That’s just bizarre.
Wild guess? The front cabin is for couples, the rear cabin is for strangers. Strangers don’t need to face each other.
I do think this is the intention.
Spell check! Interesting article though 🙂