I like the logo, I hate the tail. Ugh.

 

I agree, over all I like the logo. I just wished it was on the tail.

You know what..the title's aren't too bad from up close...the tail is still awful.

 

Ro, I saw what you posted above a couple of months back and would've much preferred that, that's a nice looking livery.

 

Some carriers can get away with simple designs and make them look nice, Air Canada,British Airways and El AL come to mind, but AA missed an opportunity here, I was looking forward to see what they would do and now I'm thinking I prefer the old one.

Wow, I have to admit I'm surprised by how many people (and not even just from the US!) like the new livery. I think it's a horrible, garish mess. The old one wasn't my favorite, but it was elegant and classy, and the genius of it was that it hadn't changed since 1968. It was truly timeless, and there was no reason you couldn't basically keep it indefinitely.

 

In other words, I've give the old one an 8.5/10. This one is a 1/10 at best. Just using the flag isn't a guarantee that it will come out tasteless and schlocky (and obviously the old livery was based on the flag as well and was the opposite of tasteless), but in this case they've managed to do it. I think it has to do with how oversaturated the colors are and the almost complete lack of ANYTHING else on the aircraft. It makes me think of Team America, not American Airlines.

 

Embarassing is the word I'd use.

 

James

<br />Also someone mentioned the possible USAir merger... If I heard correctly, the American brand would be successor. <br />

 

Ah... I wasn't aware of that.

 

Nevermind

The flag looks like piano keys. It really is hideous.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

Umm...who in the world was in charge of making that executive decision....

I like the logo, I hate the tail. Ugh.

+1

I thought of the old Greyhound Bus logo when I first saw the new AA logo on the forward fuse section.

I like the logo but that tail is horrible imho :wacko:

 

Ugly!!!

 

Cheers,

At first I disliked it, but it is growing on me. The colorful tail in stark contrast to the more classic lines of the fuselage seems designed to elicit a childlike attraction. Maybe it does succeed as a more vibrant design. I imagine US Airways will have veto power though.

If there was a new livery that made everyone happy (which we all know is not possible) then it would probably be very boring. Kind of strange to say uh?

I appreciate their effort of going bold. This just shows you how much they are willing to do shake their image and stigma of being an old lumbering legacy airliner and not progressive like the LCCs Southwest, Ryanair, or Jetblue is perceived as being.

No, if they took care of it like Aeromexico does, the AA metallic livery could look good, but most of their aircraft look like someone's taken a hammer to the side and belted them together. Aircraft need to be washed and buffed regularly if they're going to look good in a metallic livery. Hopefully this new one will look better.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Me thinks this is why they opted for gray. Hides dust and dirt better than chrome or darker colors.

 

Almost seems a little "Greyhound" bus to me as well...

I think they could have done a lot worse, a dreaded "Euro-white" type scheme, with American on the side, a small tail design and left it at that. At least its interesting, and different, not bland and something most airlines are converting to....

True, I have a feeling a lot of that is to do with $$ though. A sheriff's department up by me made all their new cars pure white with just a big sheriff badge on the sides. No letter, or anything. Saved them something like 500-1000 bucks a car though! Couldn't imagine the savings on an airliner paint job for going bland.