BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1194 times:
Even the Union Jack tail doesn't represent the UK in my opinion.
Whenever I see Red and blue ribbons, I think of the United States.....not United Kingdom.
I just don't know why British Airways dumped the old Landor colors.
The Landor colors was a trademark to the UK. Anyone who sees that crown on the tail of an aircraft will automatically say that airline is a British airline (without having to read the titles on the side of the plane, let's say it's blocked by another plane).
While on the Union Jack tail, when you see the red and blue ribbons on the tail, you think it's some American Airlines.
If I were British Airways, I would go back to the old Landor colors.
The Union Jack tail is I have to say very nice (not as nice as the Landor colors of course), but it doesn't represent the UK.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1187 times:
I agree that the landor colour scheme was one of the best ever, one of the most recognisable colourscheme in the world. Very British and very distinct. Anyone who saw this livery would immediately know it's British.
Sad to see it go. IMO BA should keep a few 744's and 777's in the landor livery.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12957 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
Even with that so 'British' coat of arms on the tail? (Landor, stuck for a 'British image' modified a Mexican cigarette logo they'd just done).
It was time for a change, but trust Alying and his bloated managers in their Waterside irovy tower to screw it up.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12957 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1086 times:
I was never a fan of the dull Landor scheme, with it's Californian idea of Britishness, whatever that is.
Better if the whole fleet had the Concorde Landor scheme, perhaps keeping the dark blue lower fuselage and losing that grey on the upper fuselage.
Shamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1056 times:
I think all the fleet looked great in the Landor livery, except Concorde. I think the Union Ribbons logo is ok, but really isn't suited to BA - they should have something more formal. However, Concorde's current livery looks fantastic. A new livery incorporating the speedbird would have been great.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
Let's face it, the 'World Images' art was c__p, the new Chatham Historic Dockyard livery is c__p, and the Landor livery was brilliant.
Yes it was conservative, yes it was posh & stuck up, but yes it was popular with everyone.....a BA 'to fly, to serve' tail standing outside a foreign terminal or on the tarmac 1000's of miles from home, was lovely & reassuring to see.
I like the old BOAC livery too, perhaps BA should paint a 747 in retro colours, and fly it around for a year....and remind everyone else who's boss!
EGPX From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1044 times:
The World Images were indeed controversial when they were introduced. Well, the press didn't like them at any rate. I think it wasn't the images themselves which are, after all, something you notice which can not be a bad thing. It was the thinking behind them that was controversial - that BA was now a 'World' airline and wanted to stop being thought of as merely British.
admitting that is like a red rag to a bull as far as the press are concerned and when you add the fact that it cost a lot of money, the papers had a field day. BA have never been that popular with the press for some bizarre reason - journalists feign indignation when they tried to be 'less British' whilst at the same time they were scorning a successful British company. The new colours also got the thumbs down from Margaret Thatcher who famously threw a cover over a model adorned in one of the new colour schemes at some BA sponsored event, right under the nose of Bob Ayling.
All in all, it was a PR disaster for BA but great news for Virgin. Branson is not one to miss a trick and promptly declared Virgin as 'Britain's Flag Carrier' and painting Union Jack's on all of his fleet.
I personally quite like the colours - they add a bit of interest to an aircraft.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
At least you British citizens should know that BA DOES NOT use the Union Jack but only the Union Flag tail.
World Images were best of all designs. "Britishness" missing? Were you not able to read? As far as I know they had large BRITISH Airways titels on the aircraft. Or did it say "Togo Airways" or "Timbuktu Airways"?
Cheap nationalism killed a fine, modern and liberal idea. But I know some guys on the island still think to live in 1250 or somewhen.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1032 times:
In these discussions about BA's image, no-one ever mentions the original BA scheme which was used from the date of formation (1974) to the introduction of the Landor scheme (1984). The current Union Flag scheme (it is not oficially called a Union Jack) is very reminiscent of that first BA scheme.
The World Images (oficially called Utopia within BA) proved to be a mistake for a number of reasons. One - it diluted the brand image, a fatal error in my opinion. Two - for British people it was not patriotic enough. This should not have been an issue really. I don't ever remember anybody complaining that BOAC's blue and gold tails or BEA's red square scheme of the 60's were "un-British" at the time.
How can someone claim that carrying the Union Flag on the fin does not represent the United Kingdom. The full Union Flag is made up of the crooses of St George, St Andrew, St David and St Patrick, the patron saints of England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland. Yes, I know the BA scheme is modified but it is supposed to represent the Union Flag, in a stylised way. Also, Red, White and Blue is not the perogative of the USA, it's just as much representative of Britain (or France for that matter).
The Crest that appeared on the fins in the Landor scheme was specially designed to go with the scheme in 1984. In my opinion it should have been re-introduced with the current scheme. After all, it had been granted the Royal Seal of Approval by the Queen. I bet Bob Ayling didn't ask her opinion when the Landor scheme was being given the boot.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 978 times:
I don't understand some people claiming the union flag reminds them of the USA, stars and stripes remind me of america, nothing else. There is none of that on BA's planes, the union flag is much more British, although the landor colour scheme was a trademark of BA, not many other symbols were as symbolic as the landor scheme.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8821 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 978 times:
I agree that they should bring back the Landor livery. It stands out very nicely, and is very crisp and conservative. The greyness also makes it a pleasure to see, as it is something different than the white that is becoming predominant with many major carriers (DL, CO, AF, LH, QF, I could go on...) adopting this livery.
I personally think that BA should stop repainting the planes in the pretty bad (and boring) Union Flag scheme, and when they are up for repainting the planes, put them right back in the Landor. It is by far the best livery out there, and it is sad to see it shrinking and being replaced by a much inferior livery.
Just one more comment on the Concorde in the Landor scheme, since someone brought it up: The Concorde has to have a white fuselage at the top, due to the ionispheric flight levels.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 970 times:
I think it should have the St. George's cross on the tail instead of that stupid ribbon BS, thats no more british than the world tails were (and the world tails were to represent all the destinations, because it was not just british, but worldwide).
TBH, look at alot of national airlines, they don't represent much of their country yet the country still loves em.
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 919 times:
The St George flag would only represent England, not Britain, so no doubt you'ld have the Scots, Welsh and (probably) the Northern Irish up in arms. As I said above, the current tail design is very similar to the original BA scheme, which no one moaned about.
Well, actually, that's not quite true. The BA European Division (formerly BEA) staff wanted the wings of BA aircraft to be painted red as BEA's had been. However, BA management balked at the idea of painting a 747 set of wings all red - although no doubt BEA would have painted their Tristars' wings red if they'd been delivered before the merger. What got up the ex-BEA staffs' nose was that the old BOAC (and Imperial Airways) "Speedbird" motif was adapted as the symbol of BA. Unfortunately Landor ditched the Speedbird in 1984, the only remaining reference being the BA callsign.