pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15315 times:
What this livery is asking for - red color.
They could play with UNITED along the fuselage.
As of today - it looks decent - but pretty ..er..uninspiring.
But as I am planning to go DME-IAD on UA - I should get used to it.
They will change it sooner or later.
The old United livery with dark grey-blue-red was truly unique.
UALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 590 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14999 times:
What they can't say is that this whole logo is nothing more than a gesture to CO employees to keep them placated after losing their name in the merger, especially if you believe the argument that CO was the "better" carrier. (I don't mean this as a political statement--I haven't flown CO in a hundred years, so I can't comment--so please don't hijack the thread debating this.)
Although I completely agree with the writer's last comment that "15,000 e-mails should tell you something." This is at least the third or fourth article I have read about negative customer response to the new logo. While some would argue there's no such thing as bad press, it can't be good to have the media constantly talking about how bad customers think your marketing is.
"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
rwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14802 times:
My opinion is this: the combined company had one chance to come up with a common logo, and create some buzz about the merger by creating a fresh new identity. What we saw instead was a lackluster attempt that basically says "oh, by the way, we're merging". Delta, on the other hand, came up with a new image and a corresponding marketing blitz that's really focused on synergy of the combined carrier and a new identity. I find DL's approach much more appealing.
As the days go on, I'm not really sure what to expect from the new UA. There doesn't seem to be a clear vision being communicated to investors or to the public. The fact that Smisek himself "designed the logo" tells me that this is someone who does not have a bold vision of where he wants to take the largest airline in the world. Rather, it seems like someone who's desperate to rest on CO's laurels from the early 2000s, and was reluctantly dragged into this position kicking and screaming.
Cactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2381 posts, RR: 33 Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14628 times:
oh goodie! another CO/UA livery thread.... wonder how this one will end up....
Quoting rwSEA (Reply 6): Delta, on the other hand, came up with a new image and a corresponding marketing blitz that's really focused on synergy of the combined carrier and a new identity. I find DL's approach much more appealing.
no...they didn't.... Delta's new livery was out before they announced the merger. It was their post bankruptcy livery.
Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 3): This guy really seems to be a horrible person for the job.
Curious how you got that from the article... or the livery. You guys all do realize its what's inside the plane that matters most... unless you guys can show me someone that actually buys their ticket based on what the outside of the plane looks like?
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1971 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14606 times:
I think this highlights one of the difficulties for CO/UA. In merging with NW, DL had recently launched a new identity and was in a sense rebranding both parts of the combined carrier under a common identity. This was probably further helped by the fact both DL and NW were two class carriers. CO/UA is harder - It had to adopt one identity or the other to start the integration, and the current CO colours with the UA name seems the best bet. The combined carrier isn't ready for a brand new identity because there is much still to be settled, i.e. UA is a three class (four if you want to count E+) whilst CO is a two class carrier. There's a lot there to be sorted out, then harmonised (soft product wise less than hard product) before the airline should then look at going with a new identity. New colours now, followed by the standardisation of the product would be more confusing then the approach being taken. Once things have bedded in and the new UA knows where it wants to position itself (four, three or two class), is a good time to go for any revamp. That won't necessarily mean the reappearance of the tulip either. Things are fairly settled for the next couple of years - after that, who knows!
kamboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14348 times:
When I see the tail with the globe, I still think Continental. The could've at least used the same typface on the word UNITED, as is used currently on Continental. However, if I had my way, I would have gone completely with the current UNITED scheme for all planes and corporate logos.
faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14301 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): Be an airline that can get me where I want to go on time and at a reasonable price with good service, nice terminals, and comfortable seats and I can overlook pretty much any paint scheme.
Liveries mostly matter to A.nuts and related species; the flying public will warm to vomit-green with brown polka-dots if they feel they are getting a better deal for their money.
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2648 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14209 times:
Quoting kamboi (Reply 12): The could've at least used the same typface on the word UNITED, as is used currently on Continental.
That was the initial livery, unveiled the day of the merger agreement. It was hideous. The current font is an improvement (hard to believe as that is).
I've wondered if they couldn't have used the current United titles with tulip, only changing the tulip colors to blue and gold to match the rest of the Continental livery. Without seeing an artists depiction of it, I don't know how great it would look, but it's another idea. The settled on font is very boring and looks temporary.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13896 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): Let's not lose sight of the fact that the paint scheme is one of the least relevant aspects of the merger.
Branding isn't, though. Branding is important. The paint scheme is only one part of the branding, but it's a big part.
What customers are saying is that CO hasn't changed its corporate image in 20 years and that UA's brand was weak. If this merger was about a new beginning and making a new, world-class carrier, then why does the new corporate image look like a transitional livery?
Both carriers need a fresh start on their image.
The other thing is that it doesn't seem as if UA/CO is taking this very seriously. The majority (>50%) of UA aircraft are in the Battleship livery still, some six years after that livery was terminated. To date, just a few token UA aircraft have been painted in the CO livery.
DL was lightning-fast on their re-painting of the NW fleet. They made it a priority to get every NW aircraft re-branded even before they were done re-branding their own fleet out of the Deltaflot/Aeroserbia colors (the Deltaflot tail is, inexplicably, the Serbian flag).
Similarly, HP very quickly re-branded all their aircraft into their new US livery as soon as their merger was announced. I don't think it took two years.
But, living right near SFO, I have yet to see a single aircraft in the new UA colors except for the 738 demonstrator they flew in for their open house this summer.
So, Mr. Smisek, to put it bluntly, it's time to either poop or get off the pot. If you're committed to this livery, then start painting it. If you're not, then hire a marketing/design firm and get a new one. But, for the love of flying things, man, make it look like you're trying to unite United.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13869 times:
... or to put it another way ... out of all the millions of pax who fly with UA only around 15 000 were actually bothered enough by the livery to send in an email and complain about it .... I wonder what percentage of UA flyers that represents ? ... a pretty minuscule one I should imagine . To put it in perspective it would be interesting to know how many emails they get complaining about baggage fees etc .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
jetblue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1429 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13724 times:
It's not spectacular and it's not bad either. UA's not going to change it. I know Anutters would LOVE for UA to have a new, fresh and inspiring livery but most passengers won't even care or look at the livery. It's not like a lot of people would actually avoid UA purely because of the fact that their livery isn't inspiring, new, fresh or spectacular. In the end, most passengers will only care about the price, product and service anyways.
Believe me, I would want a NEW livery, but UA's trying to save money just like any other airline out there....
vgnatl747 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1492 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12932 times:
It's not spectacular, but it says United and it says Continental. I didn't like it when it first came out, but after seeing it in person it grew on me. Flashback to everyone who complained and complained about how euro-plain the new DL livery was when that came out... notice people don't have an issue with that now. CO people want the CO livery to stay, UA people want the precious tulip to stay. The new livery may not be spectacular, but it shows a link between United and Continental, and I don't have a problem with it.
As others have pointed out, 15,000 emails is NOTHING when you consider how many loyal customers there are of both CO and UA; and I'd bet a (albeit) small portion of those emails probably came from critics outside of the loyal customer group. I'd much rather they spend the money focusing on leveling the service playing field, some fleet renewal, and bringing some of the dated UA aircraft up to a competitive spec. Jeff was quick to point out that some of UA's long hall Y product (specifically in the back of the 747's) is just not up to par. Call me crazy, but as a CO elite, I'd much rather to see those services improved first.
I 100% agree with this; though it's a lot easier said than done. DL wrote the book on getting their new brand out there, and the new UA has to follow suit. That said, I did read an article that said CO has some of the highest fleet utilization in the industry. They've been doing more with less for years, and while that's great for the bottom line and the operation in general, it means it's a little more difficult to pull aircraft out of service for paint. They need to be painting much quicker than they are though.
UATulipfan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12935 times:
The livery is atrocious in every sense of the word. It's an insult to call the airline "United" when it's nothing more than a giant Continental, an airline that was overrated to the max and has some of the most arrogant C/S and execs as Smisek has proved. This is a very contentious issue, because the CEO alone made this decision and there was no marketing imput whatsover, because I guarantee that if there was, the Tulip would still be here. Branding & marketing experts have constantly derided this decision and it's even gotten on the news many times. The airline is called United Airlines, so why isn't United's iconic and better known logo still here? Northwest merged with Delta and their entire brand went away. I liked NW and it was sad, but DL did it right. UA hasn't. They should've kept the Shades of Blue UA livery or come up with something new like HP/US that has hints of CO, but has the United name and most importantly, the Tulip.
Say what you will about your experience with United in the last few years (they've always ben superb with me), but their brand was infinitely superior to Continental's. From commericals, signage, livery, and the majestic Tulip logo, the UA brand has always kept up with the times and has been truly unique. Now, instead of making progress and a real effort to unite UA and CO, Smisek has literally taken us back 20 years to a livery that I never found good to begin with.
And yes, the livery, among other issues since the merger, is driving me away from the merged UA. I never thought I'd say I don't want to fly United anymore, but Smisek is giving me a lot of reasons to.
[Edited 2011-01-15 14:29:51]
[Edited 2011-01-15 14:30:55]
Long live the Tulip! The logo of the REAL United Airlines.
jetblue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1429 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12359 times:
Quoting UATulipfan (Reply 21): I never thought I'd say I don't want to fly United anymore, but Smisek is giving me a lot of reasons to.
So you're saying you're renaming your screen name to DeltaWidgetFan?
Quoting UATulipfan (Reply 21):
The livery is atrocious in every sense of the word. It's an insult to call the airline "United" when it's nothing more than a giant Continental
It's a merger, like I said, CO keeps the livery and UA keeps the name, I can't call it equal since the livery, like you said, screams CO but at least the name remains the same... "UNITED" and...
How is it an insult? AT LEAST, it's called "UNITED" or it would be "CONTINENTAL" with UA being completely gone like NW.
I can tell that you're a big UA but since they merged, they need to somewhat incorporate both companies into one. People will get used to it just like DL's livery on the A330 and 747. And it cost a lot of money to repaint and redesign their livery, I would rather see UA refurbishing their A/C with new interiors and most passengers would want the same thing. But at least we have something to look forward to, maybe in the next 10-15 years or so, they will introduce a new and spectacular livery that you want
Quoting vgnatl747 (Reply 20): It's not spectacular, but it says United and it says Continental. I didn't like it when it first came out, but after seeing it in person it grew on me. Flashback to everyone who complained and complained about how euro-plain the new DL livery was when that came out... notice people don't have an issue with that now. CO people want the CO livery to stay, UA people want the precious tulip to stay. The new livery may not be spectacular, but it shows a link between United and Continental, and I don't have a problem with it.
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2636 posts, RR: 12 Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12301 times:
Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 9): Curious how you got that from the article... or the livery. You guys all do realize its what's inside the plane that matters most... unless you guys can show me someone that actually buys their ticket based on what the outside of the plane looks like?
I didn't get the opinion just from this article at all, but this is just one more thing on the list.
He does not at all have the "rally the troops" mentality. I agree -- what is inside the plane matters much more than the paint scheme or logo. And inside the airplane are many front line employees that are tasked with the job of customer service and flying the airplane. Not to mention all of the gate agents, ramp workers, ticket agents, etc. throughout the rest of the system.
Smisek has continually shown himself to be more of the 'bean counter' type as opposed to someone who can get the employees on the same page, with good morale, to get the company going in the right direction. Just look at the pilot contract violation for example. A working agreement between one employee group, and the company. Totally disregarded for no reason, then a court has to tell the company that they do indeed have to abide by the contract that they agreed to a few years earlier. Just the polar opposite mentality from, say, SWA or even the Delta+NWA merge so far.
Statements such as the one in the article..."of course I like it, I designed it." When Richard Anderson, Gary Kelly, etc. would reply to a similar question I'd bet they'd phrase it more along the lines of "we like this design" and not "I like it." The employees of the new United Airlines will be around long after Smisek takes his cash and quits, whenever that may be.
25 kl911: Sooooo true! I really miss it. This new livery is just all white with a title... and an ugly blue tail. I would have prefered CO's service ( in Y onl
26 UATulipfan: When someone see's a bunch of "UA" tails in the CO livery lined up at a terminal when you can't see the titles, like when you're taxing on another pl
27 iad51fl: I think this is going to replace the infamous "When is NW going to replace the DC-9's" topic... repeated over and over and over As for my thoughts...
28 Goblin211: Well, it's a bit of an eye soar but if tweaked, can have a remarkable look. And yes, it does matter to ppl what the outside of the plane looks like...
29 United1: From another thread (thanks whorsefield) heres the repaint schedule....they are doing 500+ aircraft this year. CO 2011 Q1 103AC Q2 82AC Q3 30AC Q4 34
30 usairways85: Agreed So I take it you're not too happy with the merger. Well as a CO guy I am probably more annoyed at the merger than you are. Agreed again, I nev
31 unitedchicago: I definitely wasn't pleased with the livery and will miss the Tulip. I was for blending the Tulip within the globe but what's done is done. His logic
32 usairways85: Another thing to note are the ERJ's flown by ExpressJet are being repainted as well. Over the past few weeks I have seen more and more repainted Expr
33 EA CO AS: And like it or not, the new livery is here to stay - especially judging by Smisek's tone in the article. And not many people will make their travel d
34 United1: Yuppers...the last numbers that were posted on here show 150 out of the 1263 aircraft in the combined fleet have been repainted. Including 45 ERJ-145
35 UATulipfan: Quality my foot. I've flown CO many times. For all the praise they get on A.net, they were by far not what I was expecting. They were extremely over-
36 Argonaut: No, he hasn't. It's still 2011. Literally. It's true. I never have, and I'm actually interested in the subject! (OTOH, if someone tried to make me fl
37 N766UA: Agreed. Smisek is a very "I know best, so shut your mouth" kind of person, it seems. Very condescending. It's a big part of why I've been flying JetB
38 jetblue777: I think the represents most American FAs on all major American carriers, rude, arrogant and tired. And about the meals, at least they're free but I g
39 aviateur: From something I published a few months ago.... "...Shortly after United and Continental announced their intent to merge, forming what will soon becom
40 Giancavia: Spot on.. Its just dull, I get why ppl say the livery doesnt "matter" to passengers (on a certain level) but I never understand why they whine ppl on
41 UATulipfan: I agree. The fact that over 15,000 people took the time to actually write to the CEO of an airline is a big deal. People even mailed Tulips to Tilton
42 swissair4ever: smisek is arrogant, pessimistic and flat out rude. he has already ruined CO in my mind. every time i hear a comment from him in the press it exudes hi
43 caljn: Ironically, he has in effect killed both airlines with this livery. My two cents...they should have stuck with United livery. (this from a big CO fan)
44 usair330: Why not just leave the paint the same and on the United name but the tulip where the U should be..... Would be the easiest thing to do to show both lo
45 dl767captain: Just adding "Airlines" would make it look soooo much better and would be so simple. I don't really mind it, if anything I think it just weirds me out
46 DeltaRules: That'll always be the way it is with me. When I go to the airport & see up to 60% of an airplane with the globe on it, I'll still think I'm seein
47 unitedchicago: Can't (well I guess I can) believe we're rehashing this yet again...
48 anonms: IMO this one is the cheaper-looking one. The one with the Continental typeface was merely fugly.
49 L410Turbolet: While I agree that the "United" Continental hybrid livery is incredibly bland (imho the font chosen for "UNITED" is to blame) I don't think "post-wid
50 TSS: At one time I agreed with you on that, but after seeing a couple of mockups featuring the new United (current Continental) livery with a blue belly I
51 mayor: You are correct, but it doesn't make much difference as the branding dovetailed in rather well with the merger. What gets me about the UA/CO livery i
52 Coairman: My favorite livery is the UA mid 70's to 80's one when the Tulip was born in 1974. I like the orange and blue stripe along the entire fuselage. Here i
53 FlyNWA727: Wow. I had no clue Jeff was this arrogant, cocky, and seemingly completely oblivious over that disaster he calls a "livery". At the absolutely VERY le
54 Coairman: I really don't agree with your statement above. I have not found the CO FAs any better or worse than any other mainline legacy carriers. I used to fl
55 UATulipfan: I guess it's the luck of the draw. In my experience, there tends to this vibe coming from FAs that just gives off arrogance, though not all CO FA's I
56 hnl-jack: The way things are going thus far with the merger, as well the decline of CO once Smisek took over...he may have to take his money and run sooner tha
57 UATulipfan: I do find it funny that he didn't have a salary at CO because he waived it until CO was profitable. Yet, he's raking in millions at the merged airlin
58 Coairman: I agree...I didn't like the battleship grey as much as the previous one. The grey reminds me of the long, cloudy, gloomy and snowy winters in the Gre
59 ElpinDAB: Sorry, without reading anything but the OP + link, I have to say that I really don't like CO's livery. It's just extremely dated. UA's current scheme
60 sccutler: Meh. I am concerned that the consolidation of management into Chicago may lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of the service, but I am
61 wjcandee: Back to the original point of the thread... Last night, I saw a wonderful piece about branding on Japanese television here in the hotel in which I am
62 ABQopsHP: To me, the UA name with the CO scheme, is simplistic, and looks as though the whole fleet is in hybrid mode after a merger. Yes, this is a thread that
63 OyKIE: How would it work if they did it the other way? Keep the UA logo with the Continental name? I know it is too late now, but the word Coninental is used
64 rampart: If you allow, I'll use you as an example, no intent to pick on you specifically. But I see a huge irony in this and many similar posts. The current C
65 einsteinboricua: Has anyone considered that this is just maybe a temporary livery? Imagine having a whole new livery? It would mean more costs since then all CO planes
66 IAHFLYR: It is all about Jeffy, plain and simple. 100% correct. No clue, and appears to not want a clue either. I wonder if he has ever even thought to take a
67 justlump: I find it amusing that so many on here find Jeff Smisek to be arrogant and cocky. It is perceived as a personality trait that will lead CO/UA to ruin.
68 DC8FanJet: This continued bashing of the UA/CO merged look is tiring. So what if Jeff Smisek got 15000 emails. Most of them probably came from folks on this site
69 Coairman: I will explain myself better. The current CO logo is unchanged as far how it appears on the ac tail, when it was introduced in 1991. The UA logo has
70 Argonaut: Undoubtedly. I'd bet it's the same for most of us, and (although I'm not familiar with all the reasoning that went into the decision to keep the CO l
71 Sankaps: It is actually a staggeringly high number a single, non-customer disruption-related issue. Customers usually don't get so worked up about liveries to
72 DCA-ROCguy: It's interesting to see how the controversy over the post-merger UA choice of the CO logo remains alive. In 11 years at Airliners.net, I don't rememb
73 kiwiandrew: "The public" ? I take it you mean a small section of the public ? Absolutely , as I said in an earlier post , it would be interesting to know how man
74 benbrooksny: Hi Airliners! Believe it or not after 7+ years of lurking this is my FIRST POST! Exciting. Was very happy to pay for membership after years of stimula
75 srbmod: At this point, the discussion has veered well off-topic into a general discussion/bashing of the two airlines involved in this merger and had generate