AA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3451 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
I would disagree with the terminology you use. Today while some liveries (Chinese carriers for example) have outdated liveries, most airlines' liveries would be considered Traditional, Modern or Ultra modern. MX would be "ultra modern" whereas DL and AV would be modern and you correctly said QF and KL would be traditional.
“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
MayaviaERJ190 From Mexico, joined Jan 2008, 337 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Not your 2 cents but your good taste, I agree. I think Mexicana went too far, I just want to get a feeling of what non-Mexicans think of Mexicana's daring look, one of which I think is daring but not modern or outstanding (unless it is by its uniqueness, but not a trend-setter at all). Thanks.
RCS763AV From Colombia, joined Jun 2004, 4400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3358 times:
I don´t like MX´s look at all, even though i respect them as an airline. I think they screwed up the classic eagle and that the livery looks horrible on the aircraft, especially the A330. Only the 717s look semi-well in it. And the name on top of the wing leads to confusion, as many don´t read it wirtten on the aircraft.
Jetplaner From Canada, joined Mar 2008, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3350 times:
I personally dislike Mexicana's new livery, but to put it nicely, it's 'creative' and 'different.' But I don't really like the colors, or at least the way they are arranged. It's something I would expect to see in one of those ultra-modern condo lofts. But that's just my opinion.