Personally I don't have a problem with the proposed paint but I do like the unique paint we have at present. 

I love talking about it because, as you can probably tell, I'm fascinated by design.  A part of my job (I'm in corporate PR), and sometimes a big part, is working with graphic designers.  I don't have a design background and couldn't possibly execute one - my responsibility is to explain the client's goal, work with the designer through a bunch of alternatives, and eventually select something.  I'm always fascinated to see how they go about it - the best ones are really collaborative and flexible (they'll start by showing you lots of different rough treatments), but can also surprise you with approaches you'd never have thought of on your own.  And then the compromises start because there are a lot of practical considerations (the color choices are great but will the type be readable?) Always interesting to think about what works and what doesn't, and why (and yes, to Jim's point, sometimes the client's opinion about that is different from mine or the designer's, and the client gets to win in the end).  Put graphic design together with aviation and I'm a happy camper.  If others here don't share my energy or enthusiasm, it's their job to throw things at me 'til I stop.  Division of labor gets great results! 😎

Makes sense they are repainting while upgrading Air Force One.  Makes it cheaper.  Still any president can change the design and paint as he/she wishes.  It's just that some get upset based on their political affiliations.

2 hours ago, Jim Young said:

A new design is all it is and it is NOT permanent.  All presidents are allowed to have the design they want.  The Air Force will have it repainted by the military contractor, Boeing or the contractor who gives the best price.  I have no problem with any designs.  I like the current one but obviously we are in the 21st Century and nearing the 22d and the USA is wealthier than in the early 60's.  It would be "pocket-change" for the quick design change.  The next president can change it back or come up with his/her own design.  Simple as all that.

I believe there is value in continuity when it comes to government and the image it projects. Each incoming President gets to make minor changes in the White House, like the current occupant changing the color of the drapes in the Oval Office to a gold color. Removing the Resolute Desk, or "modernizing" the iconic pillars of the architecture would be another thing.

I guess I put the look of Air Force One in that category. It's recognized all over the world, just like the Capital Dome or the portico of the White House. It's an iconic part of the package. If it is changed under the current administration, I hope the next one changes it back. Just my $.02 opinion and worth about that much. 

Much as I love the classic design, I'd be open to an alternative - I'm just not a fan of the proposed new one.  For me, this particular matter is a design consideration, not a political one.

Here's a design issue - I'll confess that when I first heard about the proposed shift to red/white/blue, my reaction was that it was going to be garish and not as classy as the current two-tone blue over white.  But in point of fact I don't have a problem with the new color choice - what I object to is the squared-off quality of the design and the heaviness of the blue underside. And I was surprised to learn - as noted above - that Loewy developed a red/white/blue treatment for what we're now describing as the "classic" livery.  And the final version - the two-tone blue - was intended by Loewy to be red and gold.  It's really interesting to look at the different versions and think about how they would have played out.  Surprises are possible - again repeating myself, but I hated the new American livery on paper and love it "in the flesh."

Something else to talk about - here I'm still complaining about the blue underside, but I was just reminded that that's a central element of the British Airways Landor livery, which I think is great.  So why does that one work? I'd say that the bright red chevron and stripe (related to the stylized Speedbird) in the blue field brings it to life.  And it delivers that forward-motion thing again.

But back to the main point - this is about taste.  It's an art.  There are no right or wrong answers.

Edited June 22, 20196 yr by Alan_A

What next?  Change the design of the national flag?

Noel

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

What next?  Change the design of the national flag?

Noel

HAHA My country recently tried that, it was a dumb idea. It went to a referendum and the people choose to keep the original flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_flag_debate

Reality is the only one way to change a flag starts with a revolution 😎

I could not see the livery too well from the model shown but I felt I could be OK with it.  The liveries I miss the most were American's silver livery, which I felt could look contemporary forever, and United's mid 70's to early 80's livery, which I liked because of the colors used.  I also liked USAirway's silver livery, and in airlines no longer in service, AirCal's and PSA's were bright and cheerful liveries, as well as Hughes Airwest and TransInternational's/Transamerica's charter livery on their DC8-63 and DC-10, they cheered me up because their DC8-63 was the first aircraft to take me across the pond from JFK to Europe.

I like British Airway's foreign livery, and Condor's as well, I liked the China Airlines livery when I first saw it in 84 at SFO, and because my wife worked for Mexicana, I loved their liveries, Taesa's and Aeromexico's silver livery.

In a sense, all foreign and domestic aircraft are "Air Force One's" and serve as ambassadors of their country's culture, heritage and pride, or in the case of regional airlines in large countries like China, Canada, the US, Brazil and Russia, the regional heritage and pride they represent.

Cheers to all of 'em

John

Edited June 22, 20196 yr by John_Cillis

10 hours ago, birdguy said:

What next?  Change the design of the national flag?

Noel

No President can do that as long as there's a US Constitution.

On 6/20/2019 at 9:59 PM, Matthew Kane said:

I like it but I think the flag in the tail could be smaller and look like it is waving in the wind. 

Canada's looks similar so they are just copying Canada again 😅

Well I preferred the grey low vis livery of Can Force One; not that I'm thrilled with that designation of it either... But things can change, eh? I do like what France did to their V.I.P. aircraft. Originally it was represented to me that the proposed colour scheme for the U.S. 747-8's involved black. It's actually blue. Maybe it'll look better than the pictures released this week. I'm eager to hear about what they'll be doing to it inside.  

4 hours ago, Jim Young said:

No President can do that as long as there's a US Constitution.

True that.

 

Just paint it Airforce Gray. Put a couple Presidential seals on the sides and the flag on the tails. No more buffing and polishing, reduce wasteful spending of maintaining appearance and call it a day.....

 

18 hours ago, Camsdad13 said:

..... No more buffing and polishing, reduce wasteful spending of maintaining appearance and call it a day.....

perhaps heads of state should forego business suits and just turn up in polo-shirts and slacks or t-shirts and jeans? A heck of a lot cheaper.. especially if you shop at Primark (like I do for clothes . Primark is a famous low-cost brand over here in England).

If it's USAF personnel who have to clean and polish AF1, then they're getting paid anyway are they not? Surely there's no additional expense for providing the prestige which a shiny clean aeroplane projects IMO? Might they be out of a job if there's not as much for them to do, thus affecting the local economy when they become unemployed?

BTW I mean no political bias in this discussion. I mentioned that I'm a Brit just because I'm not an American: Whilst I have an opinion on the proposed scheme it doesn't hold any weight compared to, say, if the American people voted on the livery. 

21 hours ago, Camsdad13 said:

Just paint it Airforce Gray.

Easy maintenance (I buy silver cars for the same reason) but then it'd look like a military aircraft, whereas Air Force One needs to represent civilian power (i.e. an elected head of state).  So a non-military (or at least a non-combat) look works better.

4 hours ago, HighBypass said:

 

perhaps heads of state should forego business suits and just turn up in polo-shirts and slacks or t-shirts and jeans? A heck of a lot cheaper.. especially if you shop at Primark (like I do for clothes . Primark is a famous low-cost brand over here in England).

If it's USAF personnel who have to clean and polish AF1, then they're getting paid anyway are they not? Surely there's no additional expense for providing the prestige which a shiny clean aeroplane projects IMO? Might they be out of a job if there's not as much for them to do, thus affecting the local economy when they become unemployed?

BTW I mean no political bias in this discussion. I mentioned that I'm a Brit just because I'm not an American: Whilst I have an opinion on the proposed scheme it doesn't hold any weight compared to, say, if the American people voted on the livery. 

I was actually being sarcastic. I love the current livery.

 

I wouldn’t have a problem with our President wearing a polo. The aircraft or clothes don’t make the person.