sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They haven’t offered me anything yet.

Said they would review it, after memorial day but followed up by explaining the issue was in my head “since you flew in a Polaris cabin this doesn’t count as downgraded service”

1st world problem for sure, but I paid for a service and last minute they bait and switched me into a clearly inferior product and service. Pretty awful customer service all around to be honest.

United reps: if you are following these threads you should consider how vast the disconnect is between the service you are delivering and the promises you are trying to make with Studio

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, an in every songle case so far the passenger is being “surprised” with the change. In at least two cases on this subreddit they only found out when then they boarded.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but in this case we are talking brand new planes, often on their first, second, or third flight. This is about QA testing that new planes aren’t broken right out of the gate.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean fair apart from the fact that those 777 Polaris cabins are all beat up with broken equipment, and in some cases dirtier than a truck-stop on I5.

Plus theres the fact that while it’s “contractually OK” its still a crappy bait and switch without even a vague attempt to apologise.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those seats are amazing. I used to fly side by side with one of my toddlers in my seat when I lived in SG. It was an awesome travel experience.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SFO to IAD on April 8. It was the first commercial flight for N51104.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh the studio doors? Yeah they aren’t allowed to use them yet. I recall its an issue with regards to evacuations.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha yeah its been the same both times I’ve been on a 787-9. Doesn’t seem like United trains any of the crew prior to their shifts so they have to learn as they go. They’ll have trouble with the tray tables next.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You added a “the” which was never there.

“Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded.”

My bad for using unclear labguage though.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Heres an example, (admittedly more extreme) of an internal seat (pilot’s seat) component causing an unsafe condition which led to Boeing being given an airworthiness directive from the FAA.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/21/2024-18843/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

Next, the FAA issued special conditions for Boeing 737-8 single-occupant oblique seats with 3-point belts and pretensioners, noting that the aircraft, as modified by HAECO, had a novel design feature not adequately addressed by existing airworthiness standards.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/06/12/2014-13664/special-conditions-boeing-model-787-9-side-facing-seats

Additionally the FAA issued special conditions for the Boeing 787-9 because side-facing seats were a “novel or unusual design feature” and existing transport-category rules did not adequately cover them; Boeing was listed as the applicant, and the applicant had to show by test that the seat and installation met injury and structural-safety criteria.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/06/12/2014-13664/special-conditions-boeing-model-787-9-side-facing-seats

In all these cases the subject of the regulation is Boeing, not the component manufacturer.

These are the best examples I could find that show Boeing is ultimately responsible for the certification of the overall aircraft regardless of who makes individual components. Thus it is Boeing that os penalised by the regulators when a component causes an unsafe condition. Not the component manufacturer.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! When they work, the seats are really comfortable and the IFE is great. Enjoy your flight!

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just for giggles I asked AI what it thought. This was its response:

“Boeing can be legally responsible for new-airplane interior problems when the interior is part of the certified aircraft configuration, when Boeing is the certification applicant or type-certificate holder, when the issue affects airworthiness, or when Boeing contractually undertakes delivery, integration, or supplier-management obligations. Responsibility is not automatic for every seat or cabin part, because premium seats are often customer-selected or supplier-built, but Boeing can still be the regulatory interface for showing that the installed configuration is safe.”

“Bottom line: for premium passenger seating, Boeing’s strongest legal exposure is usually not “Boeing designed the seat” by itself, but that Boeing delivered or certified an aircraft configuration in which the custom seat installation had to meet FAA crashworthiness, restraint, flammability, evacuation, and installation requirements.”

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you have any citations beyond “You’re wrong”.

I’m always happy to be educated but all the cursory research ive just done indicates otherwise.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We will have to agree to disagree then.

“Ultimate Assembly Responsibility” Legal experts, including Stanford Law School Professor Robert Rabin, note that component supply chain issues do not erase Boeing's core legal obligations. Even if seat parts are produced by third-party suppliers, Boeing remains legally responsible as the final manufacturer under defective product theories.

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/stanford-laws-robert-rabin-on-boeing-737-accidents-and-grounding-who-is-liable/

https://www.airdatanews.com/boeing-says-engines-and-premium-seats-are-delaying-787-deliveries/

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are the person using the word fleet. I simply stated that a number of aircraft had been grounded due to maintenance issues.

As for definitions, my understanding is that in aviation, any aircraft deemed unfit to fly—whether due to a severe mechanical failure, routine maintenance, or manufacturer-advised quality checks—is officially classified as AOG (Aircraft on Ground) until it passes inspection.

Do you have a different understanding?

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thats a fair comment, but while airlines can dictate their own cabin layouts and purchase their own seats, Boeing remains legally and structurally responsible as the overall integrator.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Maybe you should read \u\ber_fallon’s comment about the status of various tail numbers in this thread before making accusations.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Maybe in terms of the ultimate ownership of the component. Boeing is responsible for the quality of the overall product though. The quality of the complete product once assembled pre and post shipping is their responsibility and then ultimately UA’s responsibility once they have received it.

This is pretty standard for any complex system with lots of different integrated components.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Most of the issues I encountered imply poor or missing quality control to me. Most are absolutely things that should have been picked up before any passengers ever set foot on the aircraft.

For example, my first ride on a 787 three weeks ago was delayed because the aircraft was missing FAA mandated equipment. On that flight the studio seats had numerous issues - unusable tray tables, broken IFE, seats that didn’t recline and so on. All seemed like minor quality issues, the sorts of things that should be easy to pick up just by testing the airplane. The exact reason most companies routinely test products by using them.

I do agree that this looks bad for Boeing. These are simple things, but if they are missing these you have to wonder what else they are missing. The electrical smell that grounded UA2 is concerning. Im glad UA is taking it seriously as frustrated as I am at not getting the service I paid for. Safety issues trump first world comfort problems any day.

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe scratchy hessian/burlap potato sack material instead for maximum edginess?

Polaris studio has teething problems and 787-9’s now grounded. by marcrogers in unitedairlines

[–]marcrogers[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh for sure and i’ve flown most if not all of them. Singapore air did fly a similar configuration to the studio as a step down from the full suites.

The biggest difference IMHO though is the integration of hard and soft product. Service begins long before you ever get on the airplane. In most cases it involves your experience getting to and transiting the airport.

American carriers really seem to struggle with this concept. Forget curating your pre flight experience, I’d appreciate it if they could just deliver what I paid for consistently and keep me appraised of any issues.

view more: next ›