boac707
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:55 am

AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:16 am

YYZ News is reporting that the bare 767 AC has been experimenting with will be painted in regular colour this month....

Nice to see common sense has come to AC on this matter. That plane looked awful.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kryst

smokey classics to the end of time
 
User avatar
Vasu
Posts: 2945
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:24 am

Definitely agreed there!

... it was a bad idea right from the start!
 
krisyyz
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:58 am

Great News!!
That thing was a flying embarrassment for AC !

KrisYYZ
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4905
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:14 am

Well, it looked kinda shabby, but I think if they'd polished it up nice the way AA and AM do, wouldn't it have looked purty?

Maybe ya'll who actually saw it in person don't agree. All I have seen in the pics.
 
User avatar
antoniemey
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:10 am

if it had been a fresh from teh factory plane, or even a relatively new plane (1-3 years maybe) it would have been fine... but that thing had been wearing paint for YEARS, plus it had had paint stripped and sanded off, then re-applied... not the best thing if you want to get shiny metal.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:12 am

how come people who make such stupid decisions don't get axed? And to think there was even pr spin about how much fuel the reduced weight saves....
 
chrisa330
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:24 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:14 am

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 5):

It was always positioned as a test. After some time, the results would be evaluated to determine if this idea should be rolled out further. Don't see what the big deal is.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:19 am

what did the test prove? that it was a stupid idea and should not have occured from the first place. the money and time spent in conducting this test am sure could have been spent better elsewhere
 
chrisa330
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:24 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 7):
what did the test prove? that it was a stupid idea and should not have occured from the first place. the money and time spent in conducting this test am sure could have been spent better elsewhere

Ahh yes - I suppose you're able to predict exact results of proposals without testing right?  Yeah sure
 
boac707
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:55 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:23 am

Quoting ChrisA330 (Reply 6):
It was always positioned as a test. After some time, the results would be evaluated to determine if this idea should be rolled out further. Don't see what the big deal is.

I don't think there is a big deal...It was a visually unappealing thing to look at...I am glad it is now going to listed as "been there done that, don't do it again" kind of thing.

The guy who put the idea in the suggestion box probably won't again, especially if he reads all the awful opinions registered in this forum....
smokey classics to the end of time
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:26 am

All the sorry fashionistas weighing in on this topic sound so petty. It was an experiment to measure potential fuel savings. It wasn't meant to have a finished look about it.
 
bohica
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:33 am

Bare metal just doesn't look good if the plane used to be painted. Take a look at pictures of Eastern's 727's and DC9's which used to be painted and compare them to their 757's which were delivered bare matal. It makes a world of difference.
 
9252fly
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting Sebring (Reply 10):
It wasn't meant to have a finished look about it.

Agreed. AC is experimenting with numerous ideas for weight savings,from reduced baggage allowances,newpapers and magazines onboard to aircraft paint,etc,. All these ideas get people thinking about the the relation between aircraft weight and fuel requirments. I must admit some of the ideas seem silly,yet they do have some impact on fuel usage.
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:41 am

It kinda reminds me of the way they used to paint airliners....logos only, no base coats...maybe it would have looked better with a cheatline?

It might not have exactly looked real pretty, but it was a test, they only did up one, not like it was the entire fleet. Can't know without trying.....
Delete this User
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:45 am

PHEEW! Thank God. That thing is painful to look at.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 5):
how come people who make such stupid decisions don't get axed? And to think there was even pr spin about how much fuel the reduced weight saves....



Quoting Aerofan (Reply 7):
what did the test prove? that it was a stupid idea and should not have occured from the first place. the money and time spent in conducting this test am sure could have been spent better elsewhere

Wow.. what hostility in your responses if I may say so..

ANY individual who floats and idea that could POTENTIALLY save the company money, should NEVER be axed.

As long as the idea doesn't cost more money to implement than the realized benefits of said idea, suggesting money saving ways is a great way to move on up in the company!

The whole idea behind this was to *test* the viability. Testing has OBVIOUSLY ended, and they've made a decision..

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:33 am

So was the test successful or not? Did it noticeably decrease fuel burn? I'm guessing aesthetics plays a factor in this as well, so I suppose that whatever advantage there was didn't outweigh the ugliness or the need to strip other aircraft.
 
airbusfanyyz
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 1:01 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:39 am

I have seen it and it looks awful but I hope to snap a pic of it before she's repainted.

Cheers,
Kaz
 
visityyj
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:23 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 7):
the money and time spent in conducting this test am sure could have been spent better elsewhere

What money and time would that be ? It had to be stripped even if they were going to repaint it in the new scheme.
 
accargo
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:19 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:54 am

What are hoot. It "looked" awful. LMAO. News flash folks, It wasn't done so you all could get some new snaps posted on airliners. Half of the ones complaining probably don't like the design on the painted aircraft either. It was a test, it was one acft, it will be repainted.

I like to check out all the great photo's here as much as the rest but I don't go screaming for someone's job when I see an acft I don't like the colour of. With the cost of aviation fuel the way it is, there are a lot of airlines looking at a lot of differant ideas to save on that huge fuel bill. This was one of those ideas. Sorry it wasn't visually appealing. LOL
 
tristaryul
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:28 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:20 am

The aircraft was ferried from YUL to MCI last monday,its currently undergoing a C check overhaul at AA facilities.it will then be re-painted into AC's new colors
internal source=no savings!!

cheers
Eric
AirTeamImages
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:26 am

I think it looks great, they should keep it just as such.
I Love HNL.............
 
B707Stu
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:15 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:43 am

I think they should have kept the basics and not painted it, I liked the starkness of it, except they should have just put a Maple Leaf on the tail and not those dots.
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2387
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:00 am

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 5):
how come people who make such stupid decisions don't get axed? And to think there was even pr spin about how much fuel the reduced weight saves....

How do you know that AC did not find the tests to be positive and will ensure that the new lot of 787's,etc will come shiny from the factory...? The current lot are old aircraft and the test may have served its purpose....
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:50 am

Hope CX has more luck with their 742F thats rolled out in MAY!!
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:54 am

They can't repaint that badboy fast enough - it's hideous.

YOWza
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:56 am

The blue reflections on the fuselage from the sky and the blue tail actually blend quite well in the photo above. Unfortunately nobody at Air Canada has ever heard of the term "buffing." If they'd really buffed the shine on that plane it would look really cool.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
MarshalN
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:39 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:56 am

Yay! I like the toothpaste a lot more than this abomination
 
FLYACYYZ
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:13 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 23):
How do you know that AC did not find the tests to be positive and will ensure that the new lot of 787's,etc will come shiny from the factory...?

Spoke to somebody in marketing, and in the end, they want a consistent brand. Wasn't as cost effective and maintenance free as they thought--looked like a tarnished tin can. I flew it for the first time before being ferried to MCI. It really looked like crap.
Above and Beyond
 
AnMCOSon
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:12 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:20 pm

Maybe AC should have called JAL and asked where they got this 747 buffed.  sly 

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erwin

What the? Did everything just jump around? Or did my brain just stroke off there for a second?
 
avroarrow
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 10:40 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:38 pm

At the risk of being unpopular I have to say that I think it looks better in real life than in photos. I'm not saying I thought it looked great mind you, but it is neat to see something different now and again.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:42 pm

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 4):
plus it had had paint stripped and sanded off, then re-applied... not the best thing if you want to get shiny metal.



Quoting Bohica (Reply 11):
Bare metal just doesn't look good if the plane used to be painted. Take a look at pictures of Eastern's 727's and DC9's which used to be painted and compare them to their 757's which were delivered bare matal. It makes a world of difference.

I always thought Western's Bud Light scheme looked sweet in its day.
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
motopolitico
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:54 pm

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 23):
ensure that the new lot of 787's,etc will come shiny from the factory...?

I thought composites didn't have the same shine. Am I mistaken, or would that be impossible? I thought the advent of Airbus planes with composite tails, etc, was why we saw the advent of the "white whale" paintjobs EVERYWHERE. Am I smoking crack here?
Garbage stinks; trash don't!
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1503
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:09 pm

Quoting AnMCOSon (Reply 29):
Maybe AC should have called JAL and asked where they got this 747 buffed

From the factory in those paintings right? AC should have really done it when the aircraft came straight out of the factory. The 767-200 looked like some antique tin can when it flew in.
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
FlightShadow
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:32 pm

Quoting Stirling (Reply 13):
Can't know without trying.....

 checkmark  It was meant for a good cause

Quoting Socal (Reply 21):
I think it looks great, they should keep it just as such.

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks it looked just fine  Smile
"When the tide goes out, you can tell who was skinnydipping."
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:47 pm

It did look shabby. The new AM 777 looks plain wonderful. Will someone explain to me why this so-called bare metal scheme looks good on the AM plane andw awful on the AC. I, mean, thy're both BARE metal.

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 5):
how come people who make such stupid decisions don't get axed? And to think there was even pr spin about how much fuel the reduced weight saves....



Quoting Aerofan (Reply 5):
what did the test prove? that it was a stupid idea and should not have occured from the first place. the money and time spent in conducting this test am sure could have been spent better elsewhere

While the above reads pretty hostile, somebody please explain to me this, and I am REALLY looking for an answer not flaming:

1)Mangagement knows the amount of fuel this plane requires to fly
2)They know the cost of the paint
3) They know how much paint is needed
4) Since the aircraft will be flying randomly across the network of AC's 767 fleet (I am assuming this, ok)

Why then can't someone at AC make a computer model that will predict the fuel burn minus the paint?

I am not a computer modeler, but I do work with them and certainly build them myself sometimes. A model like this doesn't sound too complicated. You could do multiple regression, but I guess some excel numbers would do.

I mean, engine manufacturers can give pretty exact numbers on their product's performance when they haven't even been build. Granted, with a small margin of error. So why do AC--and other airlines--have to actually strip a plane and fly it around to see how much fuel it would burn?
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4262
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:26 pm

Quoting BOAC707 (Reply 9):
especially if he reads all the awful opinions registered in this forum....

I'm sure airline execs give a rats ass about what a.netters think  Yeah sure

It was a test to see if they could save fuel, they weren't concerned in any way whether it would look good in some geeks telephoto lens.

At least AC in actively pursuing ideas to save money and not just dragging on for years in bankruptcy like many other majors.

Kris
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:39 pm

Let's also remember that this 762 is probably 20 years old. Bare metal looks great on new aircraft - but appearantly everyone hates how it looked on this old bird.

I wonder how many of you were ooohing and aaahing at that AeroMexico 777 that just rolled out of Everett in bare metal. Nobody was complaining about that bird now were they!

Drew  wave 
I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
FLYACYYZ
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:13 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:08 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 36):
I'm sure airline execs give a rats ass about what a.netters think

Bingo!!

Yes, they're all aware of a.net and airlinemeals.net, and every other forum out there, and probably have a good chuckle over it.

The reality is, I bet we have very little influence over airline coporate policy.
Above and Beyond
 
yousef727
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:04 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:03 am

Quoting Socal (Reply 21):
I think it looks great, they should keep it just as such.

I agree it looks nice. In my opinion AC should go for this livery.
Aviation all the way.......
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:16 am

that was the best looking plane in the fleet. Air canada's horrible greenish body paint is an insult to humanity. Give me bare metal any day.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
SpruceMoose
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:12 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 35):
Why then can't someone at AC make a computer model that will predict the fuel burn minus the paint?

They did a model, but models are based on assumptions, and it's wise to experiment to test those assumptions. But in this case, it's sounds more like they were confident of the fuel savings, but not the aesthetic and operational factors (including customer reaction and how long it actually takes to buff to an acceptable finish, which would then determine how quickly the effort would start paying back):

http://www.achorizons.ca/en/issues/2005/november/sparkling_silver.htm

Quote:
"We're reviewing it both from an aesthetic point of view and also to analyze how the finish stands up to our operating environment," Jon Turner, Vice-President, Air Canada Maintenance.

While the complete process on a B767 -- from initial wash to final polishing -- takes up to 12 days to complete, the removal of primer and paint reduces the aircraft's weight by approximately 360 pounds. Taking today's fuel prices into account that translates into fuel savings of more than $24,000 per year for each aircraft.

I think it looks great in the bare-metal scheme, but I don't really have occasion to fly AC, so my opinion's not worth much.

[Edited 2006-03-11 19:12:24]

[Edited 2006-03-11 19:13:46]
It flew at an altitude of six feet for a distance of four and a half feet. Then we discovered rain makes it catch fire.
 
F9HNLPLZ
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:53 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:14 am

I kind of like the bare metal look. Makes the leaf stand out.
Frontier Airlines, A Whole Different Animal. Maybe some day to Hawaii???
 
Gasman
Posts: 1420
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:50 am

Quoting AnMCOSon (Reply 29):
Maybe AC should have called JAL and asked where they got this 747 buffed.

Exactly. It was a marginal idea at best (supposed to save a maximum $20,000 per annum, which is peanuts in airline economics terms) but it was badly executed as well. That plane looked like a sack of sh!t.
 
Skydrol
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:01 pm

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:57 am

The bare metal 767 was OK.

How do the blue engines fit in? That is crazy.



LD4
∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
 
AR385
Posts: 6742
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:55 am

Quoting SpruceMoose (Reply 41):
They did a model, but models are based on assumptions, and it's wise to experiment to test those assumptions. But in this case, it's sounds more like they were confident of the fuel savings, but not the aesthetic and operational factors (including customer reaction and how long it actually takes to buff to an acceptable finish, which would then determine how quickly the effort would start paying back):

Thank you very much for your explanations, it does clear a few things, but it puts some other questions on my mind. So, you are saying that a more accurate model should have taken into consideration customer reaction and "time to buff"? I'm sure you know those variables could have been incorporated in a more complex model.

Also, then, does the revenue of an airline actually depends on its livery? I mean, from what you point out, and I am not saying you are wrong, then the uglier or different an ailine livery will, at least in part, determine its yearly revenue?

As a modeler, these issues will clear a few more things for me. Thanks, SpruceMoose.
 
ac7e7
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:27 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:15 am

Quoting Gasman (Reply 43):
but it was badly executed as well. That plane looked like a sack of sh!t.

I don't get people like you. I'll spell it out for you: IT WAS A TEST.

Why bother spending the extra money making it look like an AA aircraft if it was just a test? If they decided to go ahead with the entire 767 fleet, I'm sure it would have been done properly. The aircraft they tested it on is not long for this world, so it is irrelevent if it was not done to your satisfaction. Besides, as much as many numb-nuts here believe, most people don't give two-craps about the airplane they are on.

Tell me, "Badly executed" in what way? Think about it.... it was a good thing they didn't buff it up a la AA because they have decided not to go with the bare metal scheme, and have now decided to paint it. If they went all the way, that extra time buffing it up would have cost even more $$$.

Good thing you aren't running an airline. If running an airline was simply based on looks, many airlines that have gone under would still be here today.
 
BOS2LAF
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:21 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting FLYACYYZ (Reply 28):
Spoke to somebody in marketing, and in the end, they want a consistent brand.

 checkmark  The last thing they need to do is pull a Delta and have a fleet of aircraft flying around in 3 different schemes.

Everyone here, myself included, is an aviation geek. We babble endlessly and nitpick about little details like colorschemes, NW replacing its DC-9's, or CO's Peter Max 777. Details that the average joe shmoe couldn't give a damn about. You need to dumb yourself down and play ignorant, and put yourself in the shoes of the average passenger who doesnt know what type of aircraft they're on, and dont care either.

The average ignorant joe sitting in the gate area will say something like, "AC can't afford to paint their planes anymore." or, "they cant make up their own mind about their logo." or some other ignorant remark along the lines of them being too cheap to paint the whole plane or something else like that. But if he sees a line of planes all in the exact same colorscheme, and all the gates and ticket counters with uniform logos and signage, it makes the customer think, "Wow, they run a classy operation here." Now, I'm fully aware that not all the planes are in the new scheme, but that is what AC is striving for.

Having a bare metal 767 fleet with all the other planes painted just creates brand confusion. The fuel savings aren't worth it if the customer is left thinking, "Holy crap, this is a (rag-tag, fly-by-night, or insert adjective of your choice) airline theyre runnning here"

Of course I, along with everyone else here, knows that the paint scheme on the plane means nothing, but when you're dealing with the general population, its all about how they're going to perceive it.
 
SpruceMoose
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:12 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:55 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 45):
So, you are saying that a more accurate model should have taken into consideration customer reaction and "time to buff"? I'm sure you know those variables could have been incorporated in a more complex model.

"Should have" implies more critique of their method than I intended. I think they did things just about right. The article I cited referenced some figures for weight savings and the corresponding savings per year. One goal of the test would be to firm up those numbers - does the new livery actually use 360 lbs less paint than the old one? Does reducing the weight actually save as much fuel as thought?

But there's some uncertainty in how long it takes and how much it costs to strip the paint and buff to a decent finish. I'm sure even the paint shops can only estimate until they know what condition the aluminum's in under N layers of paint. Firming up those numbers gives you a better idea of what it really costs to change to the bare-metal livery, versus just painting again, and that tells you how long it'll take for the new scheme to pay for itself (given your assumptions about fuel cost).

The photos illustrate why they needed to test this on one of their own aircraft before commiting to doing the whole fleet. A stripped plane looks noticeably different than a never-painted plane. Would more work have improved that? How much more work before it's no longer cost-effective?

As for the revenue-effect - that's one for the marketing experts. Certainly they could gauge reaction to the bare planes from their customers. Fundamental to all the fuss over how to paint your planes is the assumption that the livery affects your branding which affects your revenue, both in terms of number of passengers, and what you can convince them to pay you versus another carrier. They may or may not spend a lot of effort on measuring that. It's probably a good-enough start to see what sort of complaints/compliments they get from their customers, to see if the trend is positive or negative.

Personally, I think the plane looks cool, and I'd be more inclined to fly with an airline that's taking steps to save fuel in ways that don't affect my comfort when I'm on the plane. But as I said before, I don't have occasion to fly AC, so mine is just the opinion of an enthusiast, not a customer. If Delta, JetBlue, or United tried this, they'd get a little pricing power from me in that I'd choose a slightly more expensive ticket from them over a cheaper ticket from the others. But I also recognize that I'm probably unusual in that regard, and I don't fly enough to make my opinion count for more.

Even if we incorporate all that extra sophistication in our model, a model is not reality. A model is our best guess at reality, and it's limited by our uncertainties, assumptions, and ignorance. It's a powerful and useful tool, but the best practice is to check the model with experiment. In my line of work a quick experiment often beats an awful lot of analysis.

Kudos to AC for trying something to save a little fuel without hosing their passengers. Too bad it didn't work out so well for them.
It flew at an altitude of six feet for a distance of four and a half feet. Then we discovered rain makes it catch fire.
 
ac7e7
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:27 am

RE: AC's Bare 767 To Get Dressed

Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:59 am

Quoting BOS2LAF (Reply 47):
aving a bare metal 767 fleet with all the other planes painted just creates brand confusion

When you are dealing with the general population, trust me, they don't give a crap. We are talking about 1 plane out of a fleet of hundreds. Besides, what about AA and their A300.... Not polished up like the rest of the fleet. I highly doubt passengers are debating the brand.