Braniff Place
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:22 pm

Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:31 pm

Well, why did BA get rid of this great arty tails and replace them with a non-original DL like UK flag.
Can someone give me thereal reason?
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:36 pm

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"

Regards

Ikarus
 
transswede
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:00 pm

I thought those custom tails were great!  Smile Sure, some weren't that great, but others were just beautiful IMO. Like this one:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work



The current wavy flag is so booooring... (Those fake highlights on the flag is just a old as someone still using drop shadows in web design)

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer



Now if you want brand name recognition, the old livery was classic, much better. Sure, the body could have used a small update, but why get rid of that wonderful tail?

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer

 
Jaspike
Posts: 4843
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:01 pm

They were good!!

It had something to do with Margaret Thatcher not liking them. One of the reasons why they went.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:05 pm

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".
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:06 pm

Ikarus: I think you are wrong. There are people who dislike the world tails, but there are a lot of people who like the world tails too.

alvin
Boeing747 万岁!
 
G-ELDG
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:35 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:08 am

ITS ACTUALY BECAUSE NATS TOLD THEM TO CHANGE THE TAILS AS THEY COULD NOT BE RECOGNISED BY OTHER AIRLINES WHILST IN FLIGHT.
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:18 am

I heard NATS were very unhappy about them.

Commercially it just misjudged the situation very badly, the British and American markets were less than impressed and that's an awful lot of their customers

Personally I think the new colours are pretty crap.
 
carmy
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 12:00 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:19 am

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
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:27 am

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.
 
transswede
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:31 am

Ok, I can see the arguments for getting rid of the flowers - But why pick such an awful uninspired new livery?

IMO there's only one airline livery that has had a flag on its tail and looked good - and that's the "DeltaFlot" livery.
 
richcandy
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 4:49 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:30 am

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.

Rich
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:36 am

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
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2000 4:49 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:54 am

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.
 
vambridge
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 8:23 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:57 am

I think the new flag livery is the best yet!
I love it on the 777
Cheers
FP
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1733
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:38 am

The world images were great !!! How can you say that the "animal and trees" , Poland , South Africa , Celtic, Dutch are awful...

At least they some images could have been kept for franchise partners ...

For example :

Comair , the South African tail...
British Mediterranean , The Russian tail
Loganair , Scotland... etc...

That could have been great because these franchises are not BA ...

The new tail is boring and was quite happy when it was only used for concordes ... Now , it only suites B744
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:49 am

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!

Neil/Toronto
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:35 am

I like it now. Half "ethnic whatever" and half "british design". A nice mixture.

Apparently, I read in Flight International, that engineers weren't happy cuz they couldn't find cracks and other normal faults that you find in tails.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
parisien
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 5:04 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:56 am

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 !
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:02 am

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'.

Regards
Neil/Toronto
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Braniff Place
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:22 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:16 am

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
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:41 am

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!

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:14 am

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:

http://airlinesgate.free.fr/articles/preview.htm


somma the original press releases..

http://www.euran.com/art&BritishAirways.htm

and of course this is fairly nice too Big grin

http://www.avsim.com/atco/baworld.htm
 
CP97-1B
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:43 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:00 pm

I didnt really care either way about the Worl Tails, I can live without them...

The only one I really liked was Chelsea Rose, I think that one is very nice...

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

CP97-1B
 
Dasa
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 9:25 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:47 pm

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.
 
Braniff Place
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:22 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:00 pm

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 making it of resonable interest i really appreciate it very much!!
THANK YOU  Smile  Smile  Smile
BN Place

 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:11 pm

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 airline!What's the point of having logos from all around the world?I can't think of any other airline that does so.
 
Stratofish
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:12 pm

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 new 'british' livery, WHY ALL??? That costs lots of money which they could need anywhere else now, and many ppl would prefer to see at least some art of the world tails remaining flying the skies.
Am I going too far to think now the conservatives have destroyed some of the most beautiful again??? ? Yeah sure

rgds
Stratofish
The Metro might be the Sub(optimal)way
 
carmy
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 12:00 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:57 pm

exactly! BA is a BRITISH airline. do they really find it so shameful to be associated with Britain?
 
9V-SPK
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:53 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:24 am

I like most of the tails.
Especially the Hong Kong "Rendezvous" one!

Best Regards
 
Guest

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:27 am

Because, Margaret had a hissy fit. She hated the tails.
 
Guest

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:27 am

I liked them. It was cool seing somthing different. I wish UAL would do something like that.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:34 am

Maggie Thatcher merely reflected the views of the majority of the British people
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:47 am

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, and maintain.
When we first saw models with them on, just before they were unveiled, everyone's reaction was that there was no brand identity.
Pretty obvious really.
Switching back to a Union Flag cost nothing, as World Tail aircraft are done when they require a paint input anyway. If the tail decal needs touching up, then the oppurtunity to replace it is taken.
BA is in the business of trying to be succesful, that is helped by a strong brand imagine. To be blunt, BA is not in the business of keeping plane spotters happy.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:55 am

Even the plane spotters at LHR dont like the flags!!
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:00 am

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, and I knew they were expecting me. On a cinema, it said "The Mummy Returns(!)"" and she wants to be everywhere. No wonder the conservatives are losing.

Anyway... I say bring back the ethnic tailfins. What art! Lovely and wonderful. And what is the world coming to if people are deciding what airline to fly on the basis of the plane's colours!
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
airsicknessbag
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:07 am

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 should pursue the idea of corporate IDENTITY not corporate DIVERSITY. Thus abolishing all but one seems to be a good idea. And then choosing the UK scheme as the only one to stay seens the logical solution for the flag carrier of the UK.

Daniel Smile
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:07 am

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 for so long associated with being bad for the economy are doing a good job, and the media is also on their side.
 
carmy
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 12:00 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:49 pm

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 because it was British Airways, a Brit couldn't associate with it because he/she was travelling BA, but it had some chinese characters or rainbow coloured motifs on the tail fin. Got to realise that most travellers don't really bother about the aeroplane they're in. They choose an airline because they can identify with the brand and they think the airline is safe and reliable.

In BA's case, noone could identify with the brand. And there goes the World's favourite airline. I say, bring back the old livery!

But as a Singaporean, I say, fly SIA! haha.  Wink/being sarcastic
 
VS744
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 9:22 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Mon Oct 15, 2001 10:13 pm

probably because Virgin Atlantic took ridiculed them publicly by using the Union Jack and publicly slamming them for getting rid of the patriotic symbol.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3890
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:42 am

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 males who don't like new things, as one mainline-media article I read put it.

Margaret Thatcher's well-considered dislike of the tails probably didn't help either. And as Daniel correctly noted, a business should have a visible identity. *Then* if they want to do some special liveries, etc, they can do so.

Really....one of the world's largest and most respected airlines, which flies some of the highest-paying business passengers in opulent splendor, was flying 744's around with blue dolphins and rainbows on their tails.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
rj777
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:50 am

I heard it had something to do with Prime Ministers....
 Confused
 
WunalaDreaming
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2001 4:44 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 2:26 am

Just though I would remind you all that the union Flag Tail was around before the Delta version. - which IMO is a plagerism.
 
Trident
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2000 4:49 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:40 am

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)?

A number of other "minus" points arose with the Utopia schemes. It is common practice in the airline industry to swap components between similar aircraft, such as rudders, trim tabs etc. This was virtually impossible if available spares were in the "wrong" scheme for the required aircraft. Individual pieces had to be painted up specially to match before installing, thus wasting valuable time and, of course, increasing costs. The issue of air traffic control concerns over identification of aircraft has been raised already although that was more to do with press speculation than any genuine concerns from ATC. I'm not against "one off" commemorative schemes but the idea of a multicoloured fleet is just plain dumb. The two other large airlines who went down that route, Branniff and Western Pacific, are both no longer with us.
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:46 am

Trident--Which "old" scheme do they mean?

Well me I mean the Landor livery


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Craig Murray



since the 'first' one still seems to me kind of transitional, and tentative:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © AirNikon



As for World Tails an maintenance, of course more espensive, but if it works from a business point-of-view then I guess it`s worth it (and anyway, just the Stabilizer and tail area. Looka what fun QF must have, with Wunala and Nalanji. Or SQ, in the days of their tropical Megatops. And so on--Thai Royal Barge, etc.).

I still think it was pretty gutsy --and definitely arty-- of BA to come out with them. Folks just weren't ready for 'em though, looks like.


P.S. another link on BA, and its progress through the decades
http://members.tripod.com/Craigs_Airlines/britishairways.htm
 
VgnAtl747
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 3:59 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 9:00 am

TransSwede
--The current wavy flag is so booooring... (Those fake highlights on the flag is just a old as someone still using drop shadows in web design)--

And what do you know about web design... personally I don't see any direct relationship between what you are saying and webdesign. In fact, I don't even see what you are saying about BA liveries.

I liked the world tails that BA was using much more than the past liveries.
Work Hard. Fly Right. Continental Airlines
 
transswede
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Tue Oct 16, 2001 9:29 am

What do I know about web design? More than you think - But that was not my point, and an completely irrelevant to what I was saying. (Anyone remotely interested in design will know what I said about drop shadows is true)

My main beef with the highlights are that they serve no purpose on an airliner IMO - they only look decent from one angle, otherwise the 3D "illusion" doesn't work well. Muting the effect by just increasing the brightness and reducing the saturation of red over the highlight would be much more effective than a simple fade to white.

In my opinion these highlights really cheapen their image - in the air, from afar, and up close. My opinion only of course...

Now the "Landor livery" - That was classic. 200% British.
 
2000first
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:50 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Wed Oct 17, 2001 1:26 am

I think the world tails were a vast improvement on their old scheme! I thioght the old colurs were some of the most boring of any airline! On a rainy day they looked even worse!
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Wed Oct 17, 2001 2:26 am

The Union Flag tail replacing the hated 'World Images' differs from the design on the Concordes.
As for the '200% British' Landor livery, Landor were stuck for a 'classy British image' so modified a design they had just done for a Mexican cigarette packet.
 
flpuck6
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 12:32 am

RE: Really Why Did BA Get Rid Of Their 'tails'?

Wed Oct 17, 2001 2:46 am

I didn't think "regular" passengers (non-interested aviation pax) actually paid attention to the colors of the airplane they were flying, just the name of the airline they were on and the service that accompanies it.
Bonjour Chef!