AirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 617 times:
hi All! I like there scheme! Its contempory, nice, attractive, although it could be jazzed up a bit, its cheap, not a lot of paint, and this airline isnt even off the ground so, they need all the cash they can get, although they have quite a bit! I like blue, so i like ther plane. i just want to know, do they expect to fill 150 seats how-ever-many-times-a-day they fly the A-320 to Rochester, NY from JFK?! I think even the A-319, seating 124 would be a little much! But hwo knows, it might work out. I like there scheme. Then again, i also love SWA's too
OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1428 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 609 times:
Well, it's certainly not the worst color scheme on the market... it's not that bad. Plus, this is the airline that's going to offer cheap fares from JFK and have live satellite TV available to every leather seat on board... I think the jetBlue logo would look nice billboard style (similar to sabena's scheme), but otherwise... it's not bad.
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 599 times:
...to elaborate on the simplicity issue. My feeling is this: an aircraft should look light and sleek - it's a flying machine afterall. Anyway, the lighter the scheme, the lighter and more graceful an airplane appears to be. I mentioned that I didn't care for UA's or US's schemes in my earlier post. They are nice, but they are just so HEAVY (both visually and physically).
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 583 times:
I don't understand the idea of a plane's paint being heavy. US's and UA's and JetBlue's liveries all contain the same amount of paint, and it weighs virtually the same for the different colors. The only airline that doesn't paint its planes is AA.
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 562 times:
Well, when I say 'heavy', I'm referring to aesthetics. Dark colors look heavy...light colors look light. But you're right...I didn't mean to say that white paint is physically lighter than white paint.
FlyCMH From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 2260 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 557 times:
jetBlue's paint scheme is sleek and contemporary. It's not eloboratly decorated, no just a plane white aircraft. Overall, I think it's pretty nice. The shades of blue on the tail appear a little akward, but I still think it looks nice. I can't wait to see them in Columbus, they will have the only nonstop flights from Columbus to JFK.
Mdsmith11 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 542 times:
The picture of jet Blue's new A/C has the four wheeled main landing gear. If memory serves me correctly, only Air India's A-320's were delivered with that option. They purchased their A-320's with four wheeled landing gear so as to not be so rough on the plane upon their apparantly rough runway surfaces.
Ha ha, I was the first one to spot/post a notice on this!
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 495 times:
I am surprised none of the UA fans are upset at JETBLUE copying alittle of UA's livery. Then again,so did TWA. I don't know about all you folks,but I am getting a little tired of the bottom paint job. You know,solid color on the bottom of the aircraft ala BA,TWA,UA,Canadian air,AWA and so on.
What ever happen to the stripe down the side of the aircraft? Oh well,just my two cents.
CPAir 4 life From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 496 times:
I can't believe what you said!
BA and Canadian had their paint jobs way before United switched to their current livery!!! ( I am more familiar with Canadians situation)
Canadians started with there Canadian Pacific planes in 1987 before they were bought by PWA.
The reason that no UA fans are upset, is because there is nothing to be upset about.
I can't see how jet blue copied UA in any way, they don't own the right to have a solid blue on the bottom of the planes.
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 486 times:
Thanks CPAir4life (you must love 'em) for the timeline correction. In the eigthies,and early nineties many carriers went to the "plain white" look. Lufstansa,Air Canada and Quantas Air to name a few. I hope this trend moves on and the "old stripe down the side" comes back again.
We are talking about aesthetics here,so in the end it really does not matter,but again,this my opinion (and its free too.)
CharterFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 489 times:
I find it absolutely boring. No logo, almost no colors... and what a strange name!
I think the worst thing in this paint scheme is the markings. They are too small. We almost don't see "jet".
But, as many others have stated, the most important are the prices and the in-flight service. I they are a good alternative to major carriers, then their paint scheme will surely not keep me from flying them.