Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Because the world tails sucked, no one liked them, and the British did not identify with an airline sporting flower arrangements on their tails. That kind of stuff belongs in marriages, thanksgiving and funeral ceremonies, not on a/c tails.....
Basically, it was a failed image exercise that damaged the brand name recognition. That's why. If that reason isn't real enough, try "because they were (mostly) ugly"
ETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4133 times:
There was also a huge ideological conflict within the company. For example, BA cabin crew were being asked to make salary sacrifices while the cost of maintaining the tail artwork was reported to cost BA an additional 10 million pounds a year in maintenance. One would have thought a Braniff-like exercise was not a smart move.
Also, as one UK newspaper correctly pointed out, if BA management has such a problem with the concept of their airline being a British carrier, maybe they should just drop the first word from the company's title and rebrand the airline "Airways".
Carmy From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4086 times:
don't know about you guys but i sure was one huge fan of the old livery. was shocked when they first came out with the new tails, i thought they were SOOOO un-British and seemed to look like an airline going through some identity crisis. Would love to see the old livery come back. And the new Union Jack on the tail looks exactly like the Thai flag. it wouldn't look too out of place on a TG plane i'd think.
and yes, i sure agree with Baroness Thatcher. As she said, the new colours are most disgraceful.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13387 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4077 times:
Previous posts have highlighted many reasons for getting rid of those silly tails.
Another was that BA's vital business market, especially in the US, were very negative. Many commented that it made the airline look like a cheap charter outfit.
Most staff hated them, and hated the CEO Robert Alying who brought them in.
So stopping further tails was his attempt to boost morale, his successor, Rod Eddington, is getting rid of them altogether.
Richcandy From UK - England, joined Aug 2001, 761 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4051 times:
This is only my opinion and I am sure lots of you do not agree. The dark blue with the crest was starting to look a bit old and need up dating and I think they should have worked on this. The world images did not give the airline a sense of nationality, and tried to be
something for everyone.
If you are british and fly BA I would think that you want the airline to be a symbol of the UK. If you are not british and flying on BA you are doing so because you want to be in britian before you leave your own country.
In short if you are american and flying from LAX to LHR
you do not want to fly on a aircraft with a african tail.
Flyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4050 times:
Yo i t makes me mad they took them away. It would be nnice to promote induviduality around the world becuase they fly to so many countries. Now it looks alot like delta's tail. There are to many color schemes that look alike. I am gettin used to SWA's new color but it still needs some work. Im just glad SWA didnt like paint there jets gray and put a hart with wings on the tail (the United States doesnt need anymore gray or blue planes). Regaurds- email or post.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4044 times:
Has everybody forgotten BA's ORIGINAL tail colours - used between 1974 and 1984? They were identical to the colours now worn. The only difference in the new design is the "wavy" aspect and the highlight. The original scheme was partly based on the last BEA tail colour of a half Union Flag (used between 1968 and 1974).
Also, the current tail scheme was devised as one of the "World Images" but for use on Concorde only.
As I've mentioned before, the huge flaw in the World Images programme (or Utopia to give it its correct title) was its "fuzzy" branding. If you are creating a strong, identifiable image for a product, whether it's a can of beans or an airline, dozens of different images only cause confusion amongst your potential customers. The whole sorry mess was only one aspect of a confused style of leadership associated with Mr Ayling which helped to alienate his cutomers, his workforce and the British public and served to severely undermine what had been a well focussed, successful airline.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16436 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4025 times:
Richcandy nailed it on the head.
BA thought it would appeal to a wider audience by re-branding as a 'world airline'. But research after showed that people flew BA in part because of its British-ness.....which implies, amongst other things, efficiency, reliability, professionalism/businesslike manner, British hospitality, etc.
The bread-and-butter of BA is the business traveller...they want professionalism and predictability...not wild multi-colour art designs. Another failed marketing experiment.....
Althought, the "English Rose" and "Benyhone Tartan" schemes are great! They're very British, their red/blue matches the rest of the fleet...hope they keep these!
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Parisien From France, joined Dec 2000, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4012 times:
It all has to do with concept rather than symbol recognition...the concept of the world art should be associated with this airline, so it does not matter what art exactly is painted on the tail or the origin of the art. lets admit it that there are positive associations as well as negative ones to British....they want to indicate that they are a world airline (not simply british, but more than that) and want to get rid of the negative aspects of the stereotypes (stuffiness, for example). 60 percent of BA's passangers are from outside Britain at that time, so a more worldly concept they thought would be more appropriate (though that 40 percent of the pax are Brits was also used as the argument to go the flag design). British Airways was aiming to be recognized as simply BA (thus the word British not mentioned anymore) assocaited with quality, worldliness...
unfortunately it did not stick. Why ? I doubt you could simply blame Mrs Thatcher (and her hand bag) for it...after all Mrs Thatcher does not like a lot of things that are not clearly British !
I think that design are great....they should maintain may be 40 and 60 percent split between the flag and the art tails designs.....
They are certainly eye catching ....and even if people have not see a particular design the concept idea should lead them to conclude...Hey thats a BA plane !
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16436 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
You are correct Parisien, there are negative aspects to the 'British identity' such as stuffiness etc...that was probably what the World Tails meant to overcome. Overall, it seems that the positive aspects of British-ness were more valued by customers.
As for Margaret Thatcher....she has no direct involvement with BA....she just wrapped a hanky around a 747 model w a World Tail....it was highly publicized.
Singapore_Air...the initial intent was to leave about 50% of the fleet in World Tails...now all BA aircraft will sport the 'Union Flag' except for a couple of 744's that visit Taipei which will remain in 'English Rose'.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Braniff Place From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 1125 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3977 times:
I cant believe some of you, i thought the BA tails were so innovative and interesting, i kinda thought of it as a flying art gallery. beautiful. like looking out the window of a termainal and criticising the tails it was great!!! It gave the airline a contempo arty look to it but that was destroyed by you conservatives who want airlines to keep a dowdy uninteresting image of blue and grey which i know i dont want that for the future.
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4121 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
I loved the tails and most that I knew loved the tails. That said many of the British flying public did not love those tails. I believe read in a local paper that according to a poll taken during the late 90s, that some 40% of the British flying public absoultley hated the tails and the reason for their contempt was that they did not reflect Britian.
Again, I love them! They were imaginetive, creative and certainly eye-cathching! I would try to get to IAH as often as I could just to see which tail would arrive on a given day. Some 70% of the time it was the Nalainji Dreaming, but 'Wings', Colum, Martha and Emily Msambo and others would drop on in as well.
Like a few of the other comments concerning their selection of the 'Docklands' design as their standard livery, well, it does absouletly nothing for me. I would have much preferred BA to return to the Landor design, that preceeded the 'Utopia' tails. Now that says Britain!
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (13 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3962 times:
Thomasphoto60--Again, I love them!
Hear hear, I think they're--ALL-- great too! But oh well, most BA customers and Britons just weren`t ready for 'em, notwithstanding the rather domineering "World's Favourite Airline" that I guess the tails were supposed to be celebratin' along with. They've a right to change it back. And yeah I prefer the original livery too, if they gotta go back.
Anyway, still have to commend BA, for goin' through with the idea for as long as they all stuck around for. Long live the World Tails, even if their memory!
(Fine Chris Sheldon mini-article and sampling, about this:
Dasa From East Timor, joined Aug 2001, 760 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3919 times:
I loved the World Tails, especially Colum, Benyhone, Chelsea Rose and Delftblue Daybreak.... I think BA should have kept them on at least some of their fleet, as they are a good change from the usual boring BA colours.
25 Braniff Place
: I would like to tak this time to personally thank all or you for voting for this post and being a part of it thank you for answering my question and m
: I know some1 who works in the paint shop for BA and he said that the stenzels for painting the planes were complex.Anyway,British Airways is a BRITISH
: Well, I loved the world tails, all of them, unfortunately I only flew on the 'Sydney2000' 757 once. But the point is even when they decided to get a n
: exactly! BA is a BRITISH airline. do they really find it so shameful to be associated with Britain?
: I like most of the tails. Especially the Hong Kong "Rendezvous" one! Best Regards
: Because, Margaret had a hissy fit. She hated the tails.
: I liked them. It was cool seing somthing different. I wish UAL would do something like that.
: Maggie Thatcher merely reflected the views of the majority of the British people
: It wasn't Maggie, or even the staff hating them. As previously stated, high-yield pax. hated them, and as Donder10 said, they were complex to apply, a
: Even the plane spotters at LHR dont like the flags!!
: Magaret Thatcher is a bitch who wants to control the present and future. I say be rid of her. She has no wit, "I was coming down to the conference, an
: Well, I have to say I like most of the world tails quite a lot, from an aesthetical point of view. However, I believe a firm and especially an airline
: Singapore_Air-its advertising.BA are trying to advertise a particualr brand and this case a British one.Also the Tories are 'losing' because Labour fo
: again. does BA find it so embarassing to be part of Great Britain? The World Tails had no identity, a foreigner could not identify with the brand beca
: probably because Virgin Atlantic took ridiculed them publicly by using the Union Jack and publicly slamming them for getting rid of the patriotic symb
: BA surveyed their business and first class pax, the big spenders, and found out that they didn't like the World Tails. All those fuddy-duddy old white
: I heard it had something to do with Prime Ministers....
: Just though I would remind you all that the union Flag Tail was around before the Delta version. - which IMO is a plagerism.
: Many posts here mention a desire to bring back the "old" scheme. Which "old" scheme do they mean? The 1974-84 one or the Landor scheme (1984 - 1997)?