Sleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 21 Posted (12 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
I would be interested in knowing if everyone else is as aggravated as I when you see otherwise beautiful aircraft that have been prostituted with advertising. I understand that real dollars are involved in this terrible artwork, but really now, isn't it like smearing peanut butter on the Mona Lisa? Please, give the Boeings and the Airbuses and the MD's wearing only the livery of their owner. Always!
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2179 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months ago) and read 1203 times:
I agree wholeheartedly. I thought the Western Pacific 'Logojets' were terrible. Ugly, ugly, ugly... and it frustrated me that such a big to-do was made about them. Some of Japan Airlines' Disney schemes are pretty hair-raising too.
For sheer ugliness, though, it's a tossup between Qantas' "Dreaming" series - beautiful 747-400s painted with hideous giant kangaroos - or Continental's Peter Max 777, which looks like regurgitated gummy bears.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months ago) and read 1192 times:
At least for the case of QF's "Dreaming" series, they were painted to celebrate the Australian heritage; a much more honorable cause than crass commercialism like wrapping a plane with Preparation-H adverts.
Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1879 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1097 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The problem with airlines selling the sides of their aircraft for advertising is the fact that this conveys a message to people of, "If this airline is so desperate to make money that they sell the side of their airplanes like they are a giant flying billboard, what else do they do to make money that I can't VISIBLY SEE? Where else might they be cutting corners?"
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3141 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 954 times:
I have no problem with special liveries and schemes, like BA's World Tails. Actually, I like them a lot. It's just when the aircraft is used as a giant billboard for an unrelated company. Therefore, I wouldn't say that Braniff's Calder DC-8 counts. Good question though as to whether it was the first special livery in general.
Sleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2050 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 946 times:
Pepsi on Concorde is so disgusting to those of us who kneel and worship at the throne of Concorde. You don't take something that is the epitome of engineering and grace and throw soda all over it. Someone should have to pay for doing that.
LostXistance From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 852 times:
i cant actually see how anyone could call the QF wunala dreaming aircraft ugly, and also they arent advertising anything, how can someone compare the wunala aircraft to that of an airline having pepsi on the side or something along those lines?
i mean come on, u might not like the wunla paint scheme but its definately not ugly.
And these two are nice. I saw the Jaguar a/c the day it got rolled out of the FLS hanger at MAN in it's new paint job (and trapped my fingers when closing it's fwd hold door at LBA). Glad to see it's still going strong.
Flyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 782 times:
I agree. Airlines that have their websites posted piss me off. I really don't understand jetBlues stupidity. They have the website facing the side the passengers are on... making it only visible to people in the plane.... people who ALLREASY BOUGHT THEIR TICKETS!!!!