7E72004 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
I know there has been talk about livery changes for several airlines, e.g. Air Canada and US...but how much does the livery play on the flying public. Obviously, the average "joe" will find it a little uneasy to board a plane that is bare metal...buthow much does the look of the plane play into it?
p.s. Does anyone think AA will ever change their livery? (obviously not now with the status of the industry).
EMBQA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
Air Canada has already changed their livery and is in the process of changing it over. I've heard of no talk of USAirways changing theirs. It's only a few years old anyway, but does come from the Stephen Wolfe era....so you might see a change after they get some money in the bank. If they did it now, with all the consessions they have asked for from their employee groups they would riot.
As for American..? Why..? It still looks great after all this time.
TWFirst From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
>>I don't think there is anything wrong with the AA livery but i would not mind seeing a more modernized version of it when they can get back in the red.<<
Ummm... they are in the red. Do you mean when they get back in the black??
Also, there is very little additional costs to painting a new livery... they just paint the plane when it is scheduled to be repainted anyway.
The additional cost comes when a company introduces an entirely new brand... not only do you have a new livery, but new signage, printed collateral, etc.
If AA kept the basic components of its visual identity and just tweaked the livery, they could do it now if they wanted.
I believe a livery is very important... it's the largest representation of an airline's visual identity and branding... a company's brand is everything. It represents all a company stands for and what it promises its customer.
Miamix707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
I don't know what the average Joe thinks, what I do know is that when people see an airplane with a white fuselage and a blue tail flying by they don't see a more "professional" or serious image than an airplane colored different would. That is just a misguided marketing myth, that is mistakenly applied to airplane exteriors. I personally believe a bright, happier looking plane can get people in the mood to fly, more so than an all white airplane with only a painted tail.
Cheetajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1988 times:
I really think it's not just about marketing. It's also tradition. Look at NWA's red tails, American's Eagle. United's 'U'. Most people couldn't care less what the plane looks like, they just want cheap fares and to get there on time without crashing. People are even bringing their own food now! So airlines could probably strip all the planes down and stamp their name in bold black letters above the windows and no one would care but us airliner geeks and die-hard employees. Braniff 'Jelly-beans' were the best concept to date along with UAL's slogan, "Fly the Friendly Skies"
PS. Red is the most expensive color to paint and maintain on an aircraft-coming from a Mechanic friend of mine in Duluth for NWA. Paint schemes DO cost money!!