Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4023 posts, RR: 6 Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4973 times:
I normally like the status quo, especially when concerning a topic near and dear to my heart: airline color schemes.
But American Airline's scheme is ancient and, in my mind, ugly. Polished aluminum may have looked good in the 50s, but I don't find it attractive at all circa 2003. Especially when more and more parts on modern aircraft are made of composite materials, and can only painted a battleship grey color to match the polished look of the rest of the aircraft. The result: an even uglier combination of colors and textures.
It is time to bring AA up to the 00's. Incorporate the US flag or the stars and stripes, but lose the steel and metallic look (I don't care that having no paintwork means less maintenance or better fuel economy!)
The truth is, I liked the final TWA scheme. I thought it was classy and true to its heritage without having to go overboard and resort to cartoons or other craziness on the side of its planes. I know purists still cry over the demise of the red and white TWA planes, but they were outdated too, and now of course all those planes where the aforementioned AA "colors" anyway!
Note to AA: please update your colors and lose the tacky steel/grey effect. Just don't do what NWA did... they took a good color scheme and made it into a monstrosity. It will take a while for the new colors of Northwest to grow on me.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4903 times:
I agree that AA needs an update and soon. Tho by not painting the planes it does save on overall weight of the planes. I think what NW has done to change there CS's is a very good idea in this day and age, lower costs, less paint and life cycle of the paint job goes from 5 years to 6 years.
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4023 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4835 times:
That's true about NWA's new scheme.. less is IN!
But I just hope AA throws some red, white and blue on the plane instead. They should take a page out of their Oneworld partner's book (British) and come up with a scheme that is classy and elegant.
Duke From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1135 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4786 times:
Well, that would be a whole lot of planes to paint! That
would be an extremely expensive job and with the company's
finances not exactly shipshape, I don't know. Plus, once
more, the advantage of less weight. But if, say, they were to
paint future deliveries, maybe they could. But if they do so,
I hope that one way or another, they'll make them look smart
and not tacky. Any concrete ideas for a livery?
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4023 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4699 times:
Well, it is true, there is an enormous cost to painting the planes that AA can't afford right now.
But image counts for a lot in this business. And right now their image is hurting, especially post 9/11. The time for a change is nigh.
I'd like to see something involving the Stars & Stripes... even though the US does not have one official flag carrier, American is arguable the closest to one. It has to be patriotic yet inoffensive. Something that inspires and that is not sterile. While it can relate to AA schemes of the past, I hope there is little or no grey/silver/unpainted areas.
Oh, and it can't be wildly different, as NWA and Japan Air Lines recently decided to do with their awful new schemes.
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 898 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
I personally don't mind the silver/metallic look. I like that part. Though I do agree with the fact that more and more composite parts are going to clash with this.
However, even if they did keep the metallic/silver theme, the 3 stripes down the fuselage, and the "American" font are simply quite dated and get uglier by the day. I actually like the retrojets they did, but don't think an entire fleet would look good in that. They do need to do something with the current scheme though. That would be my opinion.
Didn't someone say something one time about something special they did to the aluminum making it actually difficult/impossible to paint all of the skin anyway? I may be making that part up, but I thought I read that somewhere. However, change the font of the lettering, and ditch the stripes, and you have a nice start.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
AIR757200 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1579 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4556 times:
Let's paint it all one color like every other airline?
Greg's post is how I feel about AA's livery. No change is needed. AA's image of the red-white-blue on polish is very important and means a great deal to the inner-culture, from employees to management.
In reference to composite parts, a nice bright silver scheme in replacement to the polish would look nice. Everything else remains the same.
Portions Section 4 of my Employee Guidebook (copyright 2000-AMR Training Group, Inc.);
A painted MD-11, our largest airplane, would weight about 250 pounds more than a polished one. On average, painting our fleet would increase the weight of each airplane 130 pounds. Since each pound of fleet weight adds about $8,000 per year of fuel expense at today's prices, not painting the fleet saves us about one million dollars annually in fuel costs alone.
And much more info... So obviously, recalculate the numbers into today's terms (and minus the MD-11).
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 7708 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4538 times:
Why change it? It doesn't look out of date at all. Some airlines never quite get it right and need to change every ten years to keep abreast of fashion(NW, UA), but AA got it right back in 1968 or whenever it was.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4486 times:
It does need to be updated! Maybe not a total overhaul tho it could be brought into the year 2003. I am a BIG fan of the red white and blue tho I feel that the AA CS's has become tired and in need of a face lift.
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4413 times:
It would make sense if AA were to change its livery now, for the following reasons:
1.) New management. AA's management team, headed by Arpey, is admittedly a team of AA old-timers, but airlines historically have changed their image within a couple of years of hiring new management (DL, NW, US, TW, CO, etc.).
2.) Brand association. Images of AA's current livery, while memorable, established, and familiar, swarmed around Sept. 11, with commonly circulated footage of one of its 767s flying into the World Trade Center. Moreover, the familiar A'A eagle logo made the front page and news teasers around the world when AA587 crashed and recovery crews fished the intact tail and AA logo out of the water. Although most studies indicate consumers will forget about those images -- and thus lose those associations -- within a matter of months, it still should figure importantly into new management's thinking about the AA image.
3.) A symbolic move. Changing the carrier's graphic image could easily signify to customers and employees the beginning of a new era at the carrier, doing away with the tired business and service model, and creating a new one. Changing the livery and concurrently implementing a recovery plan worked at CO in the mid-90s, and helped align employees with Mullin's vision at DL (or so I'm told). It also could be an option at AA.
For discussion's sake, all that said, my vote would be to keep it. I'd hate to see AA's familiar colors go. Plus, granted, I'm no visual artist or designer, but supposing AA wants to keep its bare-metal look, I can't think of anything with red, white, and blue on bare metal that looks better than the current scheme.
DodgeCharger From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4257 times:
Gnomon has a big point with brand association. It's a very recognizable scheme. Does it look good to rebrand your image and aircraft every 10-15 years? Marketing is the key here. Everyone knows that when you see the familiar AA logo it's an American Airlines plane. Companies (not just airlines) spend billions every year just to get some sort of brand recognition with their brands. Just a logo alone can mean a lot. Think about it....everyone recognizes the Coca-Cola logo, the Disney logo, the Chevy logo, the Ford logo, etc.... These logos bring about subconscious thoughts whether good or bad. This is exactly what companies spend billions on doing...building a brand recognition. They of course hope it would be a postive reaction to seeing it of course, that's a whole different topic.
Think about someone who has little knowledge of aviation, are they going to know what the new NWA airlines planes looks like? NWA now has to put extra money into publicity to let the public now about their new aircraft image. AA has built a huge brand recognition on their AA logo and red American title alone. Why change that? Sure it may be old...so is Coca-Colas. The AA is recognizable everywhere American flies. Seeing the same paint scheme for 25 years now looks good and shows signs of stability (even though American is anything but stable right now) But, it is all about marketing your product. A easily recognizable, long standing logo usually is a positive thing.
And just so you know my opinion...Growing up here in Dallas, I am ready for a change. All I see is those familiar AA logos since about 95% of the traffic is American. So yes, I would love to see a change someday. But, it's not about what me and a bunch of other spotters think
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4234 times:
I don't think AA will change its livery anytime soon.
It's a GREAT looking livery, and it's actually cheaper for AA to use this livery for two reasons: 1) it saves some as much as 200 kg on weight per plane and 2) it's a lot cheaper to apply anti-corrosion coatings and reapply new decals than to repaint the plane every C or D check.
I mean think about it: every since AA implemented the current livery around 1969, other US-based airlines have changed their liveries more than once. US did it twice, CO did it twice, DL did it three times, NW did it three times, and UA did it three times.
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3231 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4201 times:
They should not change it completely but rather update it.
Paint the surfaces that are more and more often composite. Throw some paint on the tail and the nose and the fleet should look a lot more professional. I personnally do not think it looks professional to have the entire plane shiny(ish) except for some parts. It looks as though those parts came in second hand.