Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 28714 posts, RR: 24 Posted (5 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6023 times:
The current CO livery was unveiled 20 years ago this week (February 12, 1991). This seems to be the oldest photo in the database (dated February 16, 1991) showing the new livery (and what it replaced).
I have to agree with dutchflyboi, I've always thought these colours looked treat on the 747. Maybe it could be improved by aligning the gold cheatline with the bottom of the doors rather than the tip of the nosecone? It will be interesting to see how it looks on the United 747-400!
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
TOMMY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4962 times:
So let's come to realization on this "brillant" color scheme:
--It was introduced in February 1991, less than a month after Eastern Airlines shuts down.
--In May 2010 it was decided that this same particular scheme will represent the combined UA/CO merged airline, with the name UNITED printed instead of continental.
OUCH! This scheme should have been put to bed about 10 years ago, IHMO..
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7014 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4925 times:
It's simple and classy, and has served CO well. It's far better than the garish '70s meatball scheme (which, in addition to being inherently ugly, was a symbol of the worst times in CO's history).
But it has gone a *long* time without a change. I think UA should adopt a new livery as next-generation aircraft begin to come in -- one that has a bit more pizzaz and reflects the history of both UA and CO.
PA101 From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4742 times:
While I think the current livery looks fine (As a kid, I really considered it modern and not too boring when it came out), I always digged the meatball-livery, though I have to agree, it would look too dated nowadays...
I agree. In 1991 this scheme was clean, fresh, and straightforward -- exactly what CO needed at the time to improve it's gutted image. However, it became dated by the early 2000s (still clean, still acceptable.) Today it's being kept around to please a CEO's super ego in a marriage between two major airlines. I think it would have been better to see it retired, so we could have thought of it as a nice image transition from the Lorenzo era to the prosperous Gordo years at CO. Instead we have a very tired looking scheme representing United.
nonimaus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
I think seeing the different paintjobs during the transition period in '92 as a kid was one of the first times I actually took an interest in aircraft liveries and it's always interested me since then. I remember being impressed seeing our plane with the old meatball livery before a flight from Gatwick to Newark; there was something quite bold about the old colours that really stood out unlike the repainted aircraft for the flight home.
Somehow my child-logic decided that if it didn't look like the other fun plane it wasn't good enough for me and the only thing that made up for it was the turbulence on the way back, which as a kid I absolutely loved, unlike the distinctly frightened looking couple sat next to me.
We at CO voted out the old meatball when we decided on re-painting one of our 739s. Brought back too many bad memories, I guess. The decision on what retro scheme used, was left up to the employees as a vote
They almost did - the meatball was a choice in the retro livery contest along with the (winning) Blue Skyway livery, the DC-3 livery, and the 707 Golden Jet livery.
Anyway, wasn't the CO globe livery (or an adaptation) also supposed to have been Eastern's new livery before the trusteeship? I remember reading that CO's 1991 interiors were also meant to be EA's upgraded interiors in the Lorenzo/Texas Air days, so that would have made sense.
"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
This livery has been decided on, and for now, it's going to stay. End of discussion.
The funny thing is I didn't say anything about the tulip -- I essentially said CO's 20 year old paint scheme just doesn't fit the bill for the merged airline.
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 14): Anyway, wasn't the CO globe livery (or an adaptation) also supposed to have been Eastern's new livery before the trusteeship? I remember reading that CO's 1991 interiors were also meant to be EA's upgraded interiors in the Lorenzo/Texas Air days, so that would have made sense.
That would make sense. I'd love to know if anyone could confirm. Then again, why would EA want to get rid of it's iconic "hockey stick" logo in 1990-1991?
QuestAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
It's certainly a sharp-looking paint job, and I do like it quite a bit. But it's no American Airlines, which, despite its age, doesn't look a day over 40.
In other words, the CO livery could do with a freshening up, and changing the typeface to spell UNITED isn't going to cut it. I know this is getting off-topic, but they clearly should have stuck with the United tulip. A lot of my friends who have absolutely no interest in the airline biz can identify the UAL tulip, up there with the Nike swoosh and the McDonalds golden arches, but a lot fewer can name the CO globe-thingy.
When DL and NW merged, the DL Widget was kept. I understand that the UA-CO deal was supposed to be much more a 'merger of equals' rather than a takeover, as was the case with DL-NW, but the UA tulip and the UA name have far better brand recognition. Regardless of where your sentiments lie ("CO is the better airline", etc), I think pretty much everyone can agree that UA has the stronger brand.
The CO livery is classy and looks great on the 747, IMO, but it's time for something new. JAL brought back its famous crane recently after a few years' absence, so hopefully Smisek and crew will take a page out of that playbook and reinstate the tulip once the merger dust settles.
'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and Iâ��m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
AirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 457 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Quoting QuestAir (Reply 18): I understand that the UA-CO deal was supposed to be much more a 'merger of equals' rather than a takeover, as was the case with DL-NW, but the UA tulip and the UA name have far better brand recognition.
I agree and like United's new livery. Unfortunately, United was often recognized to be a lousy airline.
TOMMY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2257 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 19): I agree and like United's new livery. Unfortunately, United was often recognized to be a lousy airline.
CO was a lousy airline in the 1980s and early 1990s. Both companies have been through their rough times, although when UA was in BK they weren't flying old 2nd hand decrepit aircraft with mismatched seats in Y (just saying.)
UNITED is the brand that will live on. While many here are uninspired by the use of CO's livery which is dated. However I can only imagine how much a new and fresh livery would have cost vs painting half the largest fleet in the world and that had to be very attractive. They have much bigger things to solve too (like getting out of the A350 order! ... If they pull off being the very best USA airline with the best route system in the world by far, then maybe in 5 years we will get a new livery as good as BA's LANDOR livery! (who also did SQ & CX)
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!