Independence76 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 313 posts, RR: 1 Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
In the past few decades, multiple airlines have tried to come up with a "livery series" that go far beyond special liveries. Braniff is a primary example, as in the 1970's they debuted the "Flying Colors" campaign, painting planes in different colors each. This ended up being a financial nightmare when it came to paint maintenance.
In 1997, FutureBrand worked with British Airways to unveil the livery which is currently out. The "World Tails" campaign included a different design for each tail that symbolized some part of the world. Which was initially an interesting idea (with some criticism), it turned out to be a financial joke. Estimated 12mil. GBP lost per year alone on the tail design paint maintenance. Another large reason to the demise of "World Tails" was ATC complaining that tails were often unidentifiable as BA planes.
Since 2001, both jetBlue and Frontier have unveiled jets with different tails and colors, creating designs that literally change per every plane and would require selective paint maintenance for each airframe. Despite the financial history of these livery attempts, both jetBlue and Frontier appear to turn in profits, as well as going without any issue from air traffic controllers.
Boeing's recent 777 automated painting system dramatically reduces the time it takes to paint planes as well as cost, but what does this mean for the future of painting planes that have individual schemes? How has jetBlue and Frontier made individual schemes a profitable venture in the 21st century?
"In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes." - John Ruskin
metjetCEO From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
This may be naive but I don't think it was paint maintenance. On the complicated liveries I think losses come from down time needed to paint them...not maintain them. Simple paint schemes can be done quicker...getting the aircraft into service faster. In fact I think very little is done to maintain paint that could not wait for a scheduled check.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26196 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Quoting Independence76 (Thread starter): Braniff is a primary example, as in the 1970's they debuted the "Flying Colors" campaign, painting planes in different colors each. This ended up being a financial nightmare when it came to paint maintenance.
Braniff started doing that in the mid-1960s, not the 1970s. And why do you say it was a financial nightmare when it came to paint maintenance? The only thing different was the color. I can't see how that could add very much to maintenance and painting costs.