MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
I think it looks good, much better than that ugly interim piece of sh$t that they had. I think the original is still classy, but the new one'd be all right if they added some kind of cheatline, preferably dark blue. I like the tail.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
As someone who generally doesn't like Delta or their livery problems, I
actually find this pretty attractive, clean and crisp. The tail looks great.
I just hope they manage to keep that all white fuselage clean.
I like the Varig, PIA, Northwest, Biman Bangladesh in the background.
Very eclectic mix of airlines there!
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5485 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
I used to think it looked like crap but the more i look at it, the more i like it, I still think the "old new" scheme is one of the best i have ever seen-on any airplane, i say go back to the old new scheme.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
I don't think the new graphics on the tail are conducive to the MD-series tail structure (i.e. the stabilizer wing). I think the new design looks better on the 777's, 767's, etc., because the idea of the new design was to evoke a sense of "flow" and "fluidity" and warm touchy-feely "we're a friendly, responsive airline" kind of feelings. The stabilizer wing visually prevents that on this aircraft.
I still think they should've put the redesigned widget on the tail. It would immediately visually identify the plane as Delta's, and create a stronger brand tie in with the tri-colored Aeroflot motif on the tail and Delta's identity.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Its nice but a cheatline would top it off. One concern that has already been mentioned is the white fusealge, it gets dingy looking really fast. Take a look at Alaska Airlines 737-200s/400s, they are beige from the middle of the wing back, because of thrust reversing I suppose, they look terrible! And on MD-80s the APU outlet always leaves a big black streak, I know its not a big deal but to some joe-idiot, it looks like there has been a fire!
So, I guess the MD-88s will be around at least till another heavy-check eh? They should have at least one Tri-Star in the new scheme, like they do on the website!
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Personally I liked the old new scheme better, but it was hard to improve on the classic widget scheme first introduced in 1960 on the DC-8s. but the new new scheme looked "OK" on the 777 and 757 that they painted them on, mostly b/c the larger aircraft better show it off. But it just does not look right on the MD-88... especially with that large bare expanse of white. Why can't they be creative and use color???
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8197 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
I am completely mystified by DL's latest livery. It's perfectly nice and functional, but they had already got themselves one of those (the "old new" one) which everyone liked AND it looked a little different to everyone else (ie, it had a cheatline). The classic livery (post 1960) was desperately in need of updating but having done it once I don't see the point of spending MILLIONS (literally) to do it again. And this latest scheme may be pleasant but it's soooo conventional! White body, pastel colours on the tail which say NOTHING about the airline or even which airline it is.
I don't mind the latest livery at all, but I'm very confused by the need for it. Deltaflot need to improve many aspects of their service and the money should have been spent on catering, buying new planes, or improved profits. This is so wasteful.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Seasonedflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
Cedarjet...sorry, but Delta isn't spending 'millions' on a new paint scheme. That's the beauty of painting airplanes, you can change your mind at any time and the only additional cost is to pay the designer for a new scheme.
Delta has three (I think) paint lines going all the time at Hartsfield. With over 600 airplanes, DAL finishes painting its whole fleet about the time it has to start repainting them. Delta is not opening any new paint lines nor sending aircraft out to a contractor to be repainted. They just started using a different scheme on the planes already due to be painted.
So there are many reasons to like or not like the new livery, but it didn't cost Delta any more money than they were already spending on paint.
Iflewrepublic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 537 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
I personally dislike Delta's new livery. I prefer the one immediately prior to this one...the navy blue tail with just a tiny red stripe on the edge. However, the new rounded triangle design is by far better than the original.
Aviation is proof that, given the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
ORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1389 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
There is another cost to a new scheme other than just paying the designers. The paint isn't merely applied -- a template for each aircraft needs to be created taking into account the planes dimensions, where exactly the titles are to be placed, etc. This ensures the paint gets put on correctly and in a uniform fashion. I don't know what it costs to make these templates, but it's got to cost something.
Also, paint costs money. If colors change, then an airline has to buy new paint as well (although not in Delta's case as they kept the colors).
DALelite From Switzerland, joined Jun 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1682 times:
as a true delta fan i have to admit that i don't like
their new livery at all.
the new old painting i didn't agree with also, but
i've got used to it.
my question is why delta doesn't show their logo
or at least their letters on the tail?
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (14 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1672 times:
I suppose the more I see the new livery the more I think that these folks who designed it are trying to secretly make all airlines look exactly the same. They should have paid me to come up with a new scheme- at least mine would still have been recognized as Delta. Its the only US airline that has a name that actually means something and the widget is soooooo recognizeable- why reduce it down so much? United did the same thing with their puzzeling latest scheme which took the stylized U and shrunk it down to a fraction of its former self.
I loved the old livery and the new-old one was a beauty, a true update of the classic DELTA scheme. This new one is just like every other European carrier. Anybody see a Japan Air System plane? I saw a 777-200 in Everett with the JAS livery- wow, what a looker that is!