Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:06 am

Hi all. I must admit, before the "big announcement", I would happily bet a kidney for a livery with some changes in the "AA" titles along the fuselage, a different way of display of the tri-color lines, and a new tail and aft section with some art related with the flag of the U.S.-
I was really sure about that because I thought it will be a huge waste of money to make a full repaint of a fleet of that size, and the amount of money involved in the operation ( considering also the hours of the plane sitting in the ground for the new paint ) will discourage any further "innovation" from the AA big guys.... well, obviously I was WAAAAAAY Wrong....

But still I have my doubts.... isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

Your thoughts ?

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
But still I have my doubts.... isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

Branding is a very legitimate cost to run any business. The entire airline must be revamped in most aspects, and to get the most out of that it should be reflected in the branding. Planes are still having to be maintained anyway, so for some the painting doesn't add much to the downtime, although I suspect the airline will make a point to roll out the brand quickly.

Furthermore, a Boeing study found that it is likely slightly cheaper to have planes painted versus polished.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:27 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

FWIW, Mike Boyd sure thinks it is.

Consultant Mike Boyd thinks AA rebranding ‘completely unnecessary,’ ‘professionally irresponsible’

Quote:


It’s hard to have any sense of humor when poor management judgment like this comes to light. The competition should be very reassured.

A completely unnecessary re-branding and re-packaging of airplanes, gates, airports, backwalls, and all the rest will cost tens – maybe hundreds – of millions. At a time when retirees aren’t sure of healthcare, employees are losing jobs, and the competition is ready to pounce, to do what Horton is doing is not only an ego trip, but completely professionally irresponsible. It won’t generate a single new passenger. It won’t make American (no longer “AA,” I see) one bit more competitive. If employees have low respect for senior management – this is clearly a symptom of the cause.

Very disappointing.

LoneStarMike
 
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:28 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Furthermore, a Boeing study found that it is likely slightly cheaper to have planes painted versus polished.

Oh, that's interesting...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Branding is a very legitimate cost to run any business.

I agree... but sometimes the timing to actually DO the things is not the best ?... I think there are some "ghosts" of a not so long time ago flying around the financial troubles that AA had ( although this new image could precisely help to forget the difficult times....)

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
crAAzy
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:31 am

I think it's a safe bet that all new planes delivered will be in the new livery, but I'm still wondering if AA actually plans to repaint all their existing aircraft or if they plan on working the new livery onto some of them with the bare metal (a hybrid type look similar to what they did with some of the TWA birds).
 
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:33 am

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 2):
FWIW, Mike Boyd sure thinks it is.

He seems to be really disappointed !!

He add in his phrase a lot of things that come with rebranding ( beside the planes ) and that will cost, like he says, hundreds of millions...

G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
crAAzy
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:38 am

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 2):

FWIW, Mike Boyd sure thinks it is.

Funny but history shows that re-branding is something the majority of US (and other) airlines have felt was necessary after significant events in company history such as BK (UA, DL, US, JL, NW, etc) and there have always been those who argue it's a waste of money.
 
User avatar
jaybird
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:23 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:42 am

Generally speaking, I would say that a rebranding when coming out of Chapter 11 is good. It signals a new beginning.

Specifically regarding American and what the rebranding effort reproduced - a total waste of money - and only makes people scratch their heads and wonder what the hell the senior executives at American were thinking when they were pitched and accepted the redesign. Another fake flag on the tail a la US Airways and a disregard for the eagle - they might have well have left the eagle out all together.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:10 am

I disagree with boyd on this one. For a start, the old AA is associated with a not so good level of service and product and particularly in the premium classes long haul, this needs to change. So a new image (i won't debate that tail here as i am in the 'it needs work ' camp) is an opportunity to show how you have moved away from that. with AA investing all this money in new international premium cabins, they should also show that they have changed from the old AA. So i disagree that it won't generate any new passengers, I think it was fact time for new branding.

That being said, that tail is a bit loud for a lot of non-americans and with them lays the opportunity to sell lots of F and J tickets on long haul flights. But the new lounges, type face, etc...all of that is very necessary.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:16 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

One thing to consider—the ongoing expenses paid to the design firm over the past 14 months would have had to have been approved in the budgets presented to the bankruptcy court. Any creditor could have challenged these expenses at any point. None did, that I'm aware of.
International Homo of Mystery
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:16 am

We've seen on this board that planes have to be eventually repainted anyway, new colors or not. Each plane will simply be painted in the new colors when their time comes due for a repaint. Perhaps the process will be accelerated a bit. I heard the same questions when Delta repainted their planes from the old colors to the current colors. First paint the planes that need repainting the most.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
contrails
Posts: 1310
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:21 am

I think we'll find out in a couple of years, or maybe sooner, if this was a waste of money. My personal opinion is that someone at AA needs to have a brain scan.
Flying Colors Forever!
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:40 am

How much will AA's fuel costs increase if they repaint all of their bare metal planes with a full exterior's worth of paint?
 
JoePatroni707
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:58 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:44 am

To some extent the cost of "repainting" is offset by the fact the AA has 100's of new airplanes coming over the next few years, those will come standard in the new livery, several 100's will be retired and never see the new livery. I would guess most of the repaints will come as aircrafts go in for heavy C checks and the like, which they would likely be repainted and polished irregardless of the livery. So again that cost is offset. As much as I loved the AA livery of past, it was time to rebrand.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:46 am

Yes, yes it is..................
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5563
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:48 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

I'm looking at the two ways.

Living in the DFW area - we pretty much have to take AA for many destinations - no real choice. So for us, it really doesn't mean much.

For competitive markets like London, Europe, SEA, ORD, JFK - the new repaint says "We've got a new product - new exterior, new interior. We're not just sitting back and pushing the same old tired aircraft experience." It gets people to look at AA who had given up before.

Note - Delta, United/CO, US Airways - all have come out with new paint schemes after bankruptcy - to announce the revived operation. So a new paint scheme is pretty much SOP after a bankruptcy/ merger.
 
mrcazzy
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:44 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:52 am

I heard it is partly because the 787 is not make from metal and in order for the fleet to match they would have to change to a painted look
 
User avatar
IrishAyes
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:02 am

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8):

Boyd is 100% spot on.

American is no longer AA.

The cost implications are sickening to think about.

The livery is a cheap, tacky, unimaginative swap around of symbolism fueled by insipid corporate spin that does not, in any way shape or form, reflect the American heritage nor what its customers see as iconic. I nearly spat my coffee out watching those marketing videos on AAs (or should I say Americans) YouTube channel.

Bogus.

Worse than anything, it's a sign that AA management has lost its way for good. Professionally irresponsible is almost too kind of a description.
confidence is silent. insecurities are loud.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:03 am

As a cheapskate I would say it is a waste.

But big companies spend millions a dollars a year on marketing and painting all the planes to match is a valuable marketing expenditure.

Take a look at the United Airlines planes. They had planes in 4 liveries after the merger and the many of the battleship grey planes looked BAD. They quickly got everything painted (The sCO planes were easy of course) - signalling to the consumer they can get their act together on some things.

It is common to repaint after Bankruptcy - it is shows a fresh start. Plus the 787s needed a new livery, and the polished planes take a lot of labor to keep shiny (and they just laid off much of that labor).
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:07 am

The new paint is basically required for the A320s and 787s on order. You can't easily polish an A320 and can't polish a 787. Also the new livery will be far cheaper to maintain for AA. The paint used nowadays is quite light especially in a single layer. The reason for starting with the 77W is that Boeing doesn't want to polish airplanes, so they charge extra. A basic three color livery comes standard, but four color liveries, decals and polishing costs extra. Rumor has it that with the 77Ws being brand new order configurations, AA wasn't going to get a good price like Boeing offered on the follow on 737 orders.

AA has one of the cheapest and lightest liveries. There is a reason no other airline is polishing planes any more. Paint is lighter and beneficial to the airplane. The business case for polished airplanes is no longer good.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:16 am

As long as some of the new a/c coming into the fleet (787/A320) will have to have a PAINT job anyway, as opposed to the polished metal, how is it a waste to come up with a new livery for the entire fleet?


Having said that, this particular livery looks half-assed to me........where is the class that the old livery portrayed? As I mentioned before, the tail looks like something out of an airline disaster movie and the grey just looks, well.......grey. The paint is a better fit on the U.S.S. Missouri rather than an airliner. They could have used the silvery looking grey that NW was using at the last and come out much better.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
nwadeicer
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:17 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:38 am

I think the new paint scheme looks great. Unlike the sorry ass paint scheme Delta has. Let's see, paint the plane white, throw on some block letters. Hey, at least the white really brings out the soot and grime, at least they got that going for them.
I miss the Red Tail
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:48 am

But if the block letters spelled out 'Northwest' instead of 'Delta', would it suddenly look OK?  
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
phxa340
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:49 am

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 17):
Worse than anything, it's a sign that AA management has lost its way for good. Professionally irresponsible is almost too kind of a description.

This is professionally responsible - AAs image is trashed, rebranding will at least help by having some people give them another shot.

End of story - you have to spend money to make money.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:02 am

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 21):
I think the new paint scheme looks great.

I guess you would. Anything GREY is ok, huh?  
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:15 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):
I think there are some "ghosts" of a not so long time ago flying around the financial troubles that AA had

...hence the new branding.

Quoting JayBird (Reply 7):
Specifically regarding American and what the rebranding effort reproduced - a total waste of money - and only makes people scratch their heads and wonder what the hell the senior executives at American were thinking when they were pitched and accepted the redesign.

Whether or not the rebranding is a success or a waste of money has basically nothing to do with the brand itself. The success or failure will be based on whether the underlying costs and services really are improved from the old AA or are just more of the same.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 12):
How much will AA's fuel costs increase if they repaint all of their bare metal planes with a full exterior's worth of paint?

Less than the costs of maintaining polished planes, which apparently involves some rather nasty chemicals.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 17):
American is no longer AA.

It better not be, otherwise there will be more problems ahead.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 17):
Worse than anything, it's a sign that AA management has lost its way for good.

Actually the old planes, labor unrest, high costs, and losses quarter after quarter were the signs that AA lost their way.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
nwadeicer
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:17 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:21 am

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 22):
But if the block letters spelled out 'Northwest' instead of 'Delta', would it suddenly look OK?  

Actually, unlike you, I can (could) be critical of my original employer NWA. I wasn't a fan of the "bowling shoe" paint scheme. I did like their last version with the silver paint, red tail and "NWA" logo. OMG, LOOK! Bangkok is wide open for tomorrow! Go Go !
I miss the Red Tail
 
nwadeicer
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:17 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:26 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 24):
I guess you would. Anything GREY is ok, huh?  

Yes, actually. Anything looks better than plain white. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
I miss the Red Tail
 
AA94
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:58 am

Quoting JayBird (Reply 7):
Generally speaking, I would say that a rebranding when coming out of Chapter 11 is good. It signals a new beginning.

Exactly. A rebranding at this point is natural.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15):
For competitive markets like London, Europe, SEA, ORD, JFK - the new repaint says "We've got a new product - new exterior, new interior. We're not just sitting back and pushing the same old tired aircraft experience." It gets people to look at AA who had given up before.

  

Though some say "I don't care about how the plane looks, I want the service to be good etc. etc.," a rebranding is a physical way of showing change; that AA is attempting to move on from the negative components of its past and become a more vibrant, more competitive airline.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 17):
The livery is a cheap, tacky, unimaginative swap around of symbolism fueled by insipid corporate spin that does not, in any way shape or form, reflect the American heritage nor what its customers see as iconic. I nearly spat my coffee out watching those marketing videos on AAs (or should I say Americans) YouTube channel.

I couldn't disagree more. While from a purist perspective I was a fan of the old livery and everything it stood for, it also is a reminder one of the more trying periods in AA's history, especially the eleven or so years post-9/11. If AA follows through with its promises and delivers a superior onboard experience, customers won't care about the American heritage or what's "iconic." They'll care about the present, and the new livery is AA of the present.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
Actually the old planes, labor unrest, high costs, and losses quarter after quarter were the signs that AA lost their way.

  

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 19):

The new paint is basically required for the A320s and 787s on order. You can't easily polish an A320 and can't polish a 787.

  

The new livery was a necessity anyway. Combined with the bankruptcy exit, the timing was ideal for a refresh.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
AirCalSNA
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:35 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:59 am

Boyd's comments were silly. Neither he nor anyone else can predict whether the rebranding will or will not bring in new passengers, or allow American to hold on to its current passengers, which is the minimum that American would need to survive. The last decade has seen tremendous consolidation in the industry and extreme competition among airlines to be perceived as cutting-edge and innovative. Branding is a big part of shaping the public's perception, and it is quite reasonable to believe that creating a new image is a necessary investment in growing the business. It's also quite reasonable to believe that failing to update and refresh American's image will lead to a slow death. That's enough to justify the rebranding decision, and there is no way to guarantee that money on other things would be any more effective at saving AA.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:04 am

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 27):
Yes, actually. Anything looks better than plain white. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Like plain grey?? Kinda has an unfinished look to me. And don't worry about hurting my feelings. It would take considerably more than that. Truth be known, it took awhile for the current DL livery to grown on me, but it eventually did. I still would rather see a real widget incorporated but they don't ask me about that (or you, either, apparently). I would rather even see the lettering in a larger font, depending on the size of the a/c. Actually, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they went back to the "widget" livery.

But, this is about the AMERICAN livery, isn't it? The tail is tacky and if they had to do the fuselage in grey, use something with a more metallic look to it (as NW's was or even the Skyteam birds). The block letters maybe should have been in red and the new logo, from a distance, DOES look like Greyhound's, which is probably not a look you want.

Sorry.....did I hurt YOUR feelings?

[Edited 2013-01-19 20:07:48]



And here's one for you.........I'd like to see this a/c, again, in DL's livery.....




[Edited 2013-01-19 20:13:48]
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12389
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:10 am

As noted, the new a/c will not be able to be polished as will no longer be entirely aluminum skinned. Remember their A300's had parts of them that were painted and not polished due to the materials used.

If I am correct, the current AA livery is about 40 years old (from mid-1970's?) and a bit dated in the eyes of the public so probably due for replacement. As noted by some, it is also recognizing that AA needed to change its look to reflect a different airline that it was a generation ago. Yes, it may be a waste of money from one perspective, especially to line employees, but overall the costs of the branding change will be a relatively small part of overall revenues and possibly long overdue.

Probably the changes to the 'new' livery at airport facilities will be done as expected and scheduled renovations come due over the next year or so. As to a/c, they won't touch those being phased out over the next year or so, if a little longer maybe a 'hybrid' livery (like the MD-80's), those they will be keeping for a more than a year or so when due for major mx checks will get a visit to the paint shop. When and if due for major interior revision, that will be done then too. I bet the major paint jobs will be done - ironically - outside the USA where far cheaper. New a/c will come delivered with the new livery.

As to the look, I am not sure about how the 'flag' theme on the tail will be seen outside the USA and that could be an issue. Otherwise, it does update their look as almost all other competing airlines have done for years.
 
BarryH
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:00 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:26 am

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 2):
FWIW, Mike Boyd sure thinks it is.


His aviation career isn't very illustrious.

"Mike started his career with American Airlines in 1971. He joined Braniff International in 1977, attaining the position of Regional Director, and was responsible for opening the carrier's Far Eastern operations. In 1982 he moved to Bar Harbor Airlines as Vice President of Marketing and Planning. "

People in finance and operations have very little regard for marketing. And that's not just at an airline. Branding has a ROI just like that shiny new 773. Because the return is less visible to those outside of sales and marketing doesn't mean marketing effectiveness isn’t closely tracked. And it's just as valid a discipline as something more highly regarded like revenue management. AA's suffered some bad PR over the past couple of years that's tarnished people’s perception of it. Likewise, they've been so internally focused beating each other up (managements vs. union) that, when coupled with wonky costs, left them behind DL and UA in terms of service enhancements. Re-imaging, especially tied to new aircraft orders and service investments, helps in a couple of ways:

- It separates from the past and makes people think differently about the product. I'm sure there were tons of focus group testing (pro-AA, anti-AA, neutral to AA) and research done to determine the reaction to the new branding and its ability to sway perception.

- For the segment of the market that chooses an airline solely on price, changed or improved perception of AA has material value when people pick AA over other airlines offering the same price and/or schedule.

- The perception of elite and high-revenue flyers (retention of existing AA'rs and attracting others from different airlines) of AA and their ongoing support could pay for the entire re-branding program based on the fact they generate more profit in fewer numbers than the entire network of brand-neutral leisure travelers combined.

AA isn't doing anything that DL didn't do immediately after the NW merger and everyone applauded that. If you look at what AA's doing as an investment rather than an expense it makes more sense. Of course re-branding/re-imaging and then continuing to offer the same or worse crappy experience people knew historically has a totally different effect. Then, rather than disliking you, they now think you're disingenuous too. We won't know whether this is "good" re-branding or "bad" re-branding for a couple of quarters when we see what AA's numbers look like compared to their former selves and peers.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:21 am

Quoting BarryH (Reply 32):
AA isn't doing anything that DL didn't do immediately after the NW merger and everyone applauded that. If you look at what AA's doing as an investment rather than an expense it makes more sense.

Thank you!
  {checkmark  

One of the issues here is these kind of things are intangible investments. It's very difficult to measure in
absolute dollar terms their return/success. But that doesn't mean they're not vitally important. And of course,
one has to consider the result without them. In AA's case, they need to step away from what is essentially
a trashed brand. They could have done it keeping their old logo, but they would have to spend even more
in that instance to try and convince the public otherwise, and unless they pay attention to their carrier of choice
it will be much harder to get joe public to notice a change. A new corporate identity is instantly recognisable as a change,
even for somebody who pays little attention to aviation. American featured in the list of the 10 most hated companies in America. We can debate whether that is fair or not, but it is besides the point, it proves the company does have an image problem to deal with, and showing the public that its changed is vitally important. This is a very good way to do this. Remember without doing so they might have to double or even triple their advertising spend to get the message across without it. Not getting that message out there is not an option if American is to move forward. Now I certainly would have done that tail differently. But the idea that this is just an ego trip and an unnecessary expense is very short sighted. This is an area of essential spend. Without the customers you have nothing and this is the very first thing the customers see, even before they have chosen your product.

[Edited 2013-01-19 21:56:07]
 
BarryH
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:00 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:51 am

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 33):
One of the issues here is these kind of things are intangible investments.

As a general rule of thumb, sales, marketing, and promotion are 3-8% of revenue. I'm too lazy to look up AA's 10K to finding the marketing and promotion number but in 2012 they did $24.75B in revenue. At 3% that's a marketing budget of close to $1B. To put that in to perspective, Samsung's mobile division spent $12B in advertising and promotion in 2012. And in a re-branding many of the expenses are capitalized over anywhere from 5-8 years meaning the annualized expense is far less than it might seem. I know there are many that think there should be no monies applied to anything that doesn't benefit the employees but getting butts in seats is how the bills get paid. And there’s lots of competition for those butts.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:02 am

Quoting BarryH (Reply 34):
I know there are many that think there should be no monies applied to anything that doesn't benefit the employees but getting butts in seats is how the bills get paid. And there’s lots of competition for those butts.

  

spot on once again.
and if spending even another billion dollars resulted in that 24 billion raising to 30 billion, there is a very good chance
AA would be a much stronger company. But if you don't give the public a reason to pick you...and let them know
that you have got a good reason why would they? It's one of Emirates key strategies. In key markets, they spend
a lot more than most airlines, at about 5% of their turnover. But the numbers speak for themselves. In my home market of Australia, EK add larger more fuel efficient CASM aircraft and they fill those aircraft at the expense of some very good companies, like Singapore Airlines. The message is clear. Going to exotic place in Europe = Emirates is first choice. Bean counters don't like it, as they just see it as an expense. Pilots see lots of expensive advertising and many of those think "why aren't we getting our payrise" etc. Marketing is the one thing that brings in new business. And its pretty much the only thing. One should never underestimate that.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:09 am

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 17):
Worse than anything, it's a sign that AA management has lost its way for good. Professionally irresponsible is almost too kind of a description.

Dramatic much? It doesn't indicate anything about them one way or the other.

Its a paint job. These people aren't being represented by it one way or the other, they had a marketing firm develop it and are reacting to the focus groups.

I mean, come on. Little bit of a spend that could be delayed, yes. Professionally irresponsible? Hardly.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 29):

Boyd's comments were silly.

They're ALWAYS silly.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:51 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Furthermore, a Boeing study found that it is likely slightly cheaper to have planes painted versus polished.

That study was written in the late nineties when Jet A cost a fraction of what it does now.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
SuperDash
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:52 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:02 am

Assume no merger...

American will take delivery of something like 6,326.4 airplanes in the few years. More than half the airplanes will flip (and flip soon). The manufacturers are very nice. These new planes come with a livery (granted there are a couple of 737s at Boeing field in the old colors). Therefore, AA will likely spend way less than Delta and United did to re-brand. As many planes will come delivered in the new paint scheme.

Assume a merger....

They probably aren't going to repaint to many of the existing airplanes - only the new deliveries in the next couple of months. With a merger, there likely will be a new brand and all airplanes will get repainted, unless one of the existing liveries survives.

No it's not a waste of money. Remember, AA's currently livery costs money to maintain. Even US Air (and all the others) repaint planes on a regular basis to maintain the brand and the aerodynamics of the plane.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:27 am

Quoting superdash (Reply 38):
With a merger, there likely will be a new brand and all airplanes will get repainted, unless one of the existing liveries survives.

With such a new rebranding I doubt it.

Delta assumed the Delta brand, as will American I imagine.

NS
 
Airport
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:29 am

Quoting BarryH (Reply 32):
AA isn't doing anything that DL didn't do immediately after the NW merger and everyone applauded that. If you look at what AA's doing as an investment rather than an expense it makes more sense. Of course re-branding/re-imaging and then continuing to offer the same or worse crappy experience people knew historically has a totally different effect.

To add to your point, it's fun to search back for the threads when DL unveiled its new livery in 2007. The reaction was mixed to negative, at a very similar ratio to the reaction you see to the new AA livery. Personally, I didn't like the new DL brand when it was first debuted.

Today DL is widely regarded as having one of the best airline brands in the US. Once all the signage had been changed, all the aircraft painted, and once the DL travel experience was completely consistent, it really allowed me to appreciate why it is so effective.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:30 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
was really sure about that because I thought it will be a huge waste of money to make a full repaint of a fleet of that size, and the amount of money involved in the operation ( considering also the hours of the plane sitting in the ground for the new paint ) will discourage any further "innovation" from the AA big guys.... well, obviously I was WAAAAAAY Wrong....

It's been answered, but I'll reiterate it- marketing is king (or at least "high up there" in terms of corporate affairs, and the marketing budget usually gets what it asks for. Products can't sell themselves- you need a campaign to promote the product and raise public awareness.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 8):
For a start, the old AA is associated with a not so good level of service and product and particularly in the premium classes long haul, this needs to change. So a new image (i won't debate that tail here as i am in the 'it needs work ' camp) is an opportunity to show how you have moved away from that. with AA investing all this money in new international premium cabins, they should also show that they have changed from the old AA. So i disagree that it won't generate any new passengers, I think it was fact time for new branding.

I disagree in that they haven't proven this yet. And coming out with a new logo does not translate into better service. The name "American" and the way that it is discussed in a conversation/how it is described is far more valuable and telling than a corporate roll out that few people (other than shareholders and members of this site) will give credence to.

Quoting ADent (Reply 18):
Take a look at the United Airlines planes. They had planes in 4 liveries after the merger and the many of the battleship grey planes looked BAD. They quickly got everything painted (The sCO planes were easy of course) - signalling to the consumer they can get their act together on some things.

I don't think the public- even those coveted frequent fliers give this as much thought as we like to believe. Image and visual integrity of branding in the US Airline business has largely gone to the wayside.

---

The root of AA's "problems", IMO, is not the livery but the corporate culture- it is very toxic. Workforce - management relations are not going to be resolved by rebranding the airline. Financial performance isn't going to improve due to a new livery either. Its necessary to update the brand and product in keeping with the times, but its not the solution to turning things around, particularly if AA can't deliver what its marketing department is trying to sell.

I suppose we'll see what happens- but I don't think you can associate a livery change with success or failure.
 
vegas005
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:25 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:33 am

The issues for me is the tens of thousands of creditors who have lost money due to the bankruptcy filing yet on the flip side the company has plenty of cash to waste on a new livery. Although it might be necessary from a marketing point of view, the fact is a lot of businesses have lost money to AA when they probably could have been paid.
 
toobz
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:33 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:31 am

Quoting NWAdeicer (Reply 26):

Gawwd, I have never seen or heard a more bunch of p'd off people than a few of the ex NWAers. wow. get over it. Your colleages have.

And as far as the new AA brand, I really actually kind of like it. It's just the tail I don't care for..but I guess I will get used to that. And for the record, I didn't really care for the new DL paint job either, but am very used to it now.
 
phunc
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:52 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:48 am

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 41):
I don't think the public- even those coveted frequent fliers give this as much thought as we like to believe. Image and visual integrity of branding in the US Airline business has largely gone to the wayside.

I've always wondered this. After the DAL / NAW, CAL / UAL, BAW / BMA and even the MYT / TCX mergers, the new liveries were applied very quickly. I was amazed how fast the former liveries vanished but I look at VS and can't help but be irritated. I'm a plane nut so it will annoy me but do the travelling public really care that they have 4 different liveries on only 40 planes?

They rebranded 3 years ago and have only one A346 painted up in new colours. They have 3 types of livery on the A346 fleet. Same for thee 747 fleet which has three types of livery. FInally, the A343 has the new colours on three of the four aeroplanes and hybrid on the last one. Lastly, the brand new A333 has the same design but two have matt red and the other 8 have the default sparkly red.

I wonder what kind of message this sends when you can see all four at LHR together?

To me, it's an organisation that hasn't followed though on an initiative, it looks messy and gives me the illusion that some planes are bran new / clean inside, and some are old and dated. This is, however, probably not the case.
 
shuttle9juliet
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:12 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:19 am

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 2):

The man is totally correct in all aspects. What a bloody waste of money, where people are loosing jobs left,right and centre they waste millions on rebranding ..
 
AF185
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:58 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:41 pm

The repaint program will turn out to be a waste of money if AA merge with another carrier with a new livery soon.. Otherwise, it is a legitimate investment in order to evolve the corporate identity.
 
Western727
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:32 pm

Why can't the 32x be polished? Unlike the 787 as we all know, the 32x still has aluminum skin, doesn't it?
Jack @ AUS
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
isn't this whole repaint program a dumb way of throwing away money that could be used in a better way ?

If you put aside personal like or dislike of the new livery, and look at the fact that AA has been in dire need of a new image, especially coming out of BK, they needed to portray a fresh image to go with the new leaner & meaner, financially firm AA. I'd say yes, this was money well spent on changing public perception, that is aside from my like or dislike of the new livery.
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Isn't The AA Repaint A Big Waste Of Money?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:13 pm

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 33):
In AA's case, they need to step away from what is essentially
a trashed brand.

I suppose, but it didn't get trashed by what is on the outside of the plane.

Quoting Airport (Reply 40):
Today DL is widely regarded as having one of the best airline brands in the US. Once all the signage had been changed, all the aircraft painted, and once the DL travel experience was completely consistent, it really allowed me to appreciate why it is so effective.

I think what is needed is the completely consistently good travel experience. New paint and consistent branding is a tiny component of that, and IMHO one could/should work on that before bothering with new livery and branding.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 41):
The root of AA's "problems", IMO, is not the livery but the corporate culture- it is very toxic. Workforce - management relations are not going to be resolved by rebranding the airline. Financial performance isn't going to improve due to a new livery either. Its necessary to update the brand and product in keeping with the times, but its not the solution to turning things around, particularly if AA can't deliver what its marketing department is trying to sell.

I suppose we'll see what happens- but I don't think you can associate a livery change with success or failure.

  

DL's success is mostly because they unified their products, and used give and take to get labor on board with the new strategy. IMHO they'd be just as successful with their previous branding/livery.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 42):
The issues for me is the tens of thousands of creditors who have lost money due to the bankruptcy filing yet on the flip side the company has plenty of cash to waste on a new livery.

Creditors can at least vote for liquidation to try to get some of their money back. Stockholders are screwed.

Quoting phunc (Reply 44):
To me, it's an organisation that hasn't followed though on an initiative, it looks messy and gives me the illusion that some planes are bran new / clean inside, and some are old and dated.

Indeed, that will be the problem. You can't turn over AA's 400+ planes overnight.

Quoting BarryH (Reply 34):
I know there are many that think there should be no monies applied to anything that doesn't benefit the employees but getting butts in seats is how the bills get paid. And there’s lots of competition for those butts.

The butts in those seats don't care much that the livery looks new or fresh. They shop based on price. They tend to avoid carriers with inferior products or inferior reliability, but if the price is cheap enough they even put up with that.

They primarily want a reliable, cheap product and livery/branding has very little to do with that, and certainly can be achieved with the current AA livery/branding.
Inspiration, move me brightly!