covert From Ghana, joined Oct 2001, 1436 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Some of these retro liveries flying today look better than the current liveries of the airlines that created them. The AA Astrojet is a great example. They should have re-branded to that instead of that abomination of a livery they introduced last month, IMO.
This livery also looks great. I hope they don't get rid of it. IMO, don't fix it if it ain't broke.
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
Quoting covert (Reply 1): The AA Astrojet is a great example. They should have re-branded to that instead of that abomination of a livery they introduced last month, IMO.
I agree. A 77W would have looked great with that, or the even better one they had on that 757. Hopefully, we'll at least see one 77W retro'd as such.
As for this one, having seen her a lot in person, the paintwork is in pretty great shape, so there's no pressing need to paint it to anything just now. If they must, perhaps it can be the 1st to sport whatever new livery UA occasionally mentions wanting to go to in a few years...
Posting without Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
FlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1625 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2959 times:
I dont seen anything happening to her in the near future. She will (probably already has) get a "Operated by UAL" sticker on her for FAA purposes but other than that, she will likely not be repainted. Also the computer data for the plane lists it as already in STD colors...if that means anything.
atcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 667 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2846 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 3): I dont seen anything happening to her in the near future. She will (probably already has) get a "Operated by UAL" sticker on her for FAA purposes but other than that, she will likely not be repainted. Also the computer data for the plane lists it as already in STD colors...if that means anything.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have an "Operated by United" sticker, but it would have the operating certificate (CALA014A) written in a tiny font underneath the registration along with the rest of the sCO fleet. As far as I know, the fact that it says "Continental" on the fuse and tail doesn't matter much.
We won't see the livery on other aircraft, but I think it'll stay in the current livery for the time being. If I remember correctly, the scheme was gratis from Boeing since CO was the only carrier that truly kept the gentlemen's agreement of an all-Boeing fleet. They're also finishing up with furiously painting several hundred aircraft in the new(ish) scheme, so the notion that a company as cheap as the new UA would spent money to paint an airplane then repaint it something else is silly.
We like retro jets, but the unfortunate fact is that 95% of the flying public neither notices nor cares what color their airplane is. On the brighter side, I got to see both the UA and CO retro jets parked side-by-side at PHX about a month ago.
antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1505 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 4): I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have an "Operated by United" sticker, but it would have the operating certificate (CALA014A) written in a tiny font underneath the registration along with the rest of the sCO fleet.
Yeah, the "Operated by CALA014A" is visible in most of the side shots of the plane. Not legible, but visible.
I'm assuming they'll keep her as is until her original scheduled time for repainting, by which point she'll have flown to/past what would have been CO's 80th anniversary. Then she'll probably get standard colors.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
mav75 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 228 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1720 times:
I don't see it disappearing anytime soon. There is a trend amongst airlines the world over to have at least one of its fleet in a retro livery. Besides, as long as UA has that 320 flying around in the Friendship livery, I think the CAL retro livery is safe.
@atcsundevil, can you clarify your definition of the Gentlemen's agreement of an all Boeing fleet, at least in terms of when it took place? CAL took great pride in its DC-10's back in the 70's, with their pubs, lounges, etc., and operated a rather substantial fleet of them right up until 9/11. They also flew a rather large number of various DC-9 types, not to mention their Mad Dogs.
antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1505 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1579 times:
Quoting mav75 (Reply 6): CAL took great pride in its DC-10's back in the 70's, with their pubs, lounges, etc., and operated a rather substantial fleet of them right up until 9/11. They also flew a rather large number of various DC-9 types, not to mention their Mad Dogs.
The "Gentleman's Agreement" covered types to be ordered, not types operated. By the time the contract (the exclusivity clause of which was later nullified) was signed CO already had those on the property. They never ordered or took another non-Boeing aircraft for any size range that Boeing had an offering after that point, even second-hand.
[Edited 2013-02-10 21:20:56]
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
Mcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 7): By the time CO had the DC-9/10s, was Douglas owned by Boeing?
CO had DC-10s by the mid-70s, and were known for saving costs by operating only the DC-10 and B727 right through the 80s. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas didn't merge until 1997, well after the exclusivity agreement was signed (1992, right?)
mesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 724 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
atcsundevil From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 667 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 894 times:
Quoting antoniemey (Reply 8): The "Gentleman's Agreement" covered types to be ordered, not types operated. By the time the contract (the exclusivity clause of which was later nullified) was signed CO already had those on the property. They never ordered or took another non-Boeing aircraft for any size range that Boeing had an offering after that point, even second-hand.
The only thing I can add of substance is that it was initially a binding contract Boeing had with AA DL CO, but was challenged and subsequently lost in an EU court case. Because it's obvious that Airbus had their panties in a bunch and the ruling was considered by some as "overreaching", they instead adhered to a gentlemen's agreement. CO was the last carrier to stick with the agreement of Boeing exclusivity, although post-merger they do maintain 25 Airbus orders from sUA.
If I were a betting man (which I'm not, because I suck at gambling), I'd say that the new UA with Smisek at the helm will try to find a way to cancel the A350 order. Exclusivity to Boeing was obvious at the old CO, and the massive post-merger order for B739ER/-9MAX, touting of the B788 (well...before, anyway), and rumored interest in the B748 and/or B77W would suggest the new UA will continue their Boeing loyalty. I can imagine it gets them a pretty sweet discount...or at least a free retro paint scheme every 75 years.
I'm sure it's on Wikipedia too, if you're interested. Wikipedia knows all.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 718 times:
Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 11): If I were a betting man (which I'm not, because I suck at gambling), I'd say that the new UA with Smisek at the helm will try to find a way to cancel the A350 order. Exclusivity to Boeing was obvious at the old CO, and the massive post-merger order for B739ER/-9MAX, touting of the B788 (well...before, anyway), and rumored interest in the B748 and/or B77W would suggest the new UA will continue their Boeing loyalty. I can imagine it gets them a pretty sweet discount...or at least a free retro paint scheme every 75 years.
If I'm not mistaken, I think they are on the hook for the 350's because those are actually using the credit from cancelled 319/320 orders placed by sUA. It was mentioned on here a while back that Airbus decided to play hardball and hold UA to their contract and the already paid deposits/fees, so UA decided to use that money rather than lose it.
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, 
From Ghana, joined Oct 2001, 1436 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 981 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
