November 2, 201213 yr Typical, if they are repainting, it's what all airlines do when they go bankrupt. It's always made a difference LOL
November 2, 201213 yr Commercial Member It's also what airlines are required to do after certain periods of time anyway. As long as they're getting repainted anyway, and you'd like to re-image yourself to appear changed after a merger or reorganization, why not? Kyle Rodgers
November 2, 201213 yr ^^^^^ Very true, image rebranding is just a natural part of business evolution, puts you fresh in people's minds, etc. And how quickly we forget classics too, there'd be a HUGE public outcry if Southwest changed their "Canyon Blue" scheme, and yet we all forget the whole fleet was tan just a few years back... Elijah HoytCFI, CFII, CMEL, CSEL, CSES, IFR
November 2, 201213 yr Until they release a press statement with photos and such, don't believe any paint scheme you see. ~William Genovese~
November 2, 201213 yr The chrome finish on brand new 737s at AA is still beautiful; it's unfortunate they don't really maintain the finish because before long it looks light-greyish, then the general scheme looks dated, like maybe it was fresh in the 80s.....
November 2, 201213 yr Nice enough livery, but why bother? In a year or so, they'll probably become part of USAirways Even if there is a merger with US Airways the name will remain American Airlines. That has already been decided.
November 3, 201213 yr It's also what airlines are required to do after certain periods of time anyway. As long as they're getting repainted anyway, and you'd like to re-image yourself to appear changed after a merger or reorganization, why not? Required...?
November 3, 201213 yr Commercial Member Required...? Yep. You're not going to find the regs requiring paint, but if you look into all that goes into a an aircraft's D Check (which are required), you'll begin to see why. Kyle Rodgers
November 3, 201213 yr Still odd considering the paint scheme can add hundreds and hundreds of pounds of weight. Isn't their current scheme just bare polished metal with some simple painted bits? They can't be hurting for cash if they want to cover all of their aircraft in paint now, eh?
November 3, 201213 yr The suggested paint-scheme is simply butt ugly...keep the current font & symbolic eagle, maybe loose the red, white & blue stripe. Think OneWord scheme. Darryl
November 3, 201213 yr Yep. You're not going to find the regs requiring paint, but if you look into all that goes into a an aircraft's D Check (which are required), you'll begin to see why. I have worked many planes over the years and have seen alot paint jobs well over 20 years old. An airline may op to repaint the exterior which is what I thought you were referring to, but are not required. Many acrft do not have much of a paint job so as to save on weight, (as you know) eg. AAL. I have also worked my share of airlines which are no longer around, and the one thing they all did was to waste money on new paint jobs after going into court, as employees gave up pay and benefits. So to expand on my thread regarding AA, I think for them to spend millions on paint while employees are being layed off and giving up pay etc. for the XX time, to help save their jobs is just wrong. These folks who sit at the top seem to think that new slogins and paint will change an image or help them attract customers. I don't think it has worked yet! :rolleyes:
November 3, 201213 yr These folks who sit at the top seem to think that new slogins and paint will change an image or help them attract customers. I don't think it has worked yet! I was having this same discussion with some friends about airlines and their marketing. The recent Air New Zealand in flight safety video. You could get the highest paid, best A-list celebs to do your safety video, but it's not going to make me choose your airline. I go for the cheapest airfare, not the highest budget on the safety video. A slogan and a good brand identity goes a long way, but in my opinion, not when it comes to air travel.
November 3, 201213 yr Polar, You sound like someone who's been there. Me too. Yea, more then I like to admit......Mergers, bank rupc's, lay-offs due to poor decsions at the top. I have had my share. I was a rampie to start, management, etc. Still the best job in the world. I was having this same discussion with some friends about airlines and their marketing. The recent Air New Zealand in flight safety video. You could get the highest paid, best A-list celebs to do your safety video, but it's not going to make me choose your airline. I go for the cheapest airfare, not the highest budget on the safety video. A slogan and a good brand identity goes a long way, but in my opinion, not when it comes to air travel. I must admit...great looking and polite F.A's did more for attracting customers then a great paint job. I would agree w/ you except when an airline has a poor safety record or business problems. Years ago there were some clever T.V. adds which combined w/ the above were great incentives. LOL eg. Pan Am, and others
November 3, 201213 yr Pan Am, and others You know what? You're right. But would that make you choose them over the cheaper alternative? To me, it wouldn't, but there have been some cases where I've chosen a different airline simply because I hadn't flown it before. Does that count? haha
Create an account or sign in to comment