As old as the AA
livery is, it doesn't look outdated and is instantly recognized. Despite the fact that changing liveries and logos isn't expensive, since liveries are changed when planes are due for painting (or for polishing in AA
's case), employees will say that the cost of creating a new livery and logo could be better spent elsewhere.
Considering that AA
does not have a great history of employee relations, I can see management not wanting to rock the boat at this time.
Personally, I think AA
's in-flight service is as good as any other carrier, and better than UA
. A friend of mine used to be an F/A with AA
, and she was shocked at some of the things that UA
F/As were doing 10 years ago, in terms of procedures for meal and beverage service.
As for the A300s, a friend of mine is an AA
pilot. There are 1 reason why AA
flies the A300. It hauls a lot of cargo. The 767-300 haul's significantly less cargo, and the 777-200 is more expensive to fly on Carribean routes and has too much seating capacity, compared to the A300's configuration, which is 2-class with a lot of coach seats.
The reason that AA
flies so many MD
-80s is that many of them are paid for, they still have a lot of cycles left, and they still are reasonable in terms of operational costs.
The first group of MD
-80s were delivered in 1983, so they are about 22 years old, but then, many NW
's DC-9s are over 30 years old.
The other issue for AA
is the lack of a 100-seat airplane. Since the F100 retirement, AA
has a big gap between the 70-seat CRJ and the 136-seat MD
-80. Management has said that this is a problem, so buying aircraft to replace the F100s may be a higher priority than replacing perfectly good MD