User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3842
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

Re: AA's new branding

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:08 pm

Its grown on me as well, but I always will love the old branding and livery best. The silver AA livery is the first thing that ever made me fall in love with how an airplane looked and sparked my interest in aviation...so I'll always have a fondness for it.
 
CIDFlyer
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:19 am

Re: AA's new branding

Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:16 pm

jeffh747 wrote:
I always feel like the lone man out who disagrees with everyone on this forum. I actually like the new branding, and flying them more and more over the years, their hub airports definitely seem like they were improved with new podiums, check in areas and electronic screens. Even their new uniforms look great. Nothing will ever beat that classic silverbird livery, but everything outside of the aircraft itself feels much more improved, so much so that it is probably my second favorite brand in the US, second only to Virgin America- who does an even better job with incorporating their brand elements in their airports like SFO, JFK, DAL and FLL, (except LAX, where the AS brand is dull and gross). The new brand definitely feels more modern and more refreshing. The previous silverbird branding in the airports was starting to feel just really, really dated.


dont feel too alone I am right there with you. I will admit when it first came out I found it to be a little jarring, but I have really grown to love it and after seeing it in person at hubs like MIA, CLT, DFW, ORD & PHX its impressive seeing those tails lined up. Over all I thing the branding was a nice refresh to something a little brighter and modern. Looking back AA's old brand did seem a bit tired and dated (at the time I had never thought that but now 4 years in I can see that now).
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12642
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:09 am

Boeing778X wrote:
Um...You were saying?

I was saying: what on Earth do you find alluring about that terrible livery?

The new one isn't anything imaginative or inspiring, but it's light years beyond what they had.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:33 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Um...You were saying?

I was saying: what on Earth do you find alluring about that terrible livery?

The new one isn't anything imaginative or inspiring, but it's light years beyond what they had.


Oh come on, it's not THAT terrible! Very Spanish, classy, and it's one of the only liveries I know that faded well. I'm not saying it's the best out there. Hardly, but I thought it was pretty.

The new one is weak, tasteless, uninspiring and frankly, very very boring. A second grader with half used crayons could've made something better.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
CanadaFair
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 am

gzm wrote:
Could somebody please make a graphic design putting the new eagle on the tail? After all,it has the shape of one. Make it on a 777 tail,it should fit better as it is slender and should require few changes. Thanks in anticipation!


Already done by someone http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V1yDpwB5Eyc/U ... 6890_n.jpg

and 787 https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/13/05 ... 7e6547.jpg minus fuselage logo.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:13 am

CanadaFair wrote:


That’s quite horrible...
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:12 am

Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.

As for the American livery debate, I'm amazed it's still being discussed nearly 5 years after the reveal. I'm convinced there are some people out there who just cannot process change in any way, shape or form. As well as those who genuinely did not like the new branding, not to mention those who have warmed to it in the intervening years. Let's face it, was the preceding livery really so classic ? A bare metal plane, with a red, white and blue cheatline and an eagle logo ? Will there be this amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth the next time AA reveal's a new look ? You betcha ! ;-)
 
User avatar
TheLion
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:14 am

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:06 am

JannEejit wrote:
Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.

As for the American livery debate, I'm amazed it's still being discussed nearly 5 years after the reveal. I'm convinced there are some people out there who just cannot process change in any way, shape or form. As well as those who genuinely did not like the new branding, not to mention those who have warmed to it in the intervening years. Let's face it, was the preceding livery really so classic ? A bare metal plane, with a red, white and blue cheatline and an eagle logo ? Will there be this amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth the next time AA reveal's a new look ? You betcha ! ;-)


Some interesting points. Disagree with you on United though, in part. I like their current scheme. It's not really dated at all. However I would improve it by rolling out the 787 wavy cheatline style across the fleet and bringing back a burgundy red and deep blue tulip as the logo, placed next to the "United" titles.

Another option would be to display a melt-into-the-background stylised tulip in light grey or silver towards the rear, à la Hawaiian, US Airways and Air New Zealand.

Alias1024 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
However, it is the new eagle that offends. It is truly awful IMHO and professional opinion. There was NOTHING wrong with the old scissor eagle and it should have stayed.

THIS!

The Flight Symbol is just terrible. That’s not an eagle, no matter how much they try to say it is. It’s really an atrocious attempt at an eagle logo when people see 3D glasses, a medicine capsule, a pulltab, or a forward slash, but not an eagle. Then when you say it’s an eagle they tell you it’s, as you said, “sniffing it’s armpit.” Some times a designer can go too abstract, and the AA rebrand was one of those times.

I actually sort of like the tail. It’s instantly recognized as “American,” it looks quite good with several tails lined up in a row at the hubs, and I like that they had the guts to look past the cost of such a complex design.


user444555 wrote:
B727skyguy wrote:
That piano keyboard on the tail is hideous! When I see an AA plane, I don't think "American flag"; I think "piano keyboard."

The AA with the eagle has always been a part of American Airlines' branding. Getting rid of it was a huge mistake. That "flight symbol" just doesn't do it like the AA did.


I completely agree with this. I am ok with everything except the tail. It is the ugliest tail I have ever seen. It is even worse close up with all the colors. It brings to mind all the recent talk of respect for the flag. The US flag does not have orange, gray, and whatever blended colors the designers threw in. It is messy, disruptive from the front 3/4's of the plane and it does look like a 2 year old scribbled it. I agree with whoever said it would look better if it were only on the tail and stopped at the fuselage. At least it would not look as bad. Adding it to the fuselage makes a messy distortion into a hideously messy distortion. It is big and bold but sadly it is ugly. If anything about the new branding is not premium, it is the tail. It screams look at me, yes, but only because it is unattractive and gaudy.

I think the same firm did QF and BA IIRC. They seem to have an obsession with coloring outside the lines. The sleek, modern forward part of the plane may be bland, but it is at least a little bit classy. There is nothing classy about that tail. jmo.

It has been 5 years. I hope once the integration is complete with all employees able to bid and work all aircraft and all workers merged in all cities, there will be a 'new' livery to celebrate.

AND most importantly, I hope they will ask customers and employees before making a final decision. As someone pointed out, the vote was close and employees were confused about it. It was way too close to be a definitive end for the process. I realize management had a lot of more important things going on at the time.
But I am disappointed they did not look into other options. There should have been a third choice of should be go back to the drawing board. Leaving the polished metal was a necessity, but that ugly tail is not.


On American, I too wasn't a fan of their updated livery, however it's eased on me with time. I do feel they should have kept the existing eagle logo and used a modernised version of this between the AA on the tail, as previously, in addition to a second placement next to the "American" titles. In my view, the new logo is pretty poor design to be honest.

By way of comparison, Avianca's appeared similarly weak in impact at first, yet it didn't take long for its clever design to shine through, even if the overall Eurowhite scheme was a disappointment.

Boeing778X wrote:
fraspotter wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

First it was "too much", now it's "cheap?" Some people can't be pleased, I guess :banghead: And if you're not used to the new livery by now, you probably never will be. If AA looks "cheap" to you, I'd hate to see what you consider good looking.

The reality is that it's fresh, modern, colorful, and seeing our 777s and 787s lined up at Terminal D is a sight. The branding is perfect, I'd have it no other way.

Oh, and for the record, THIS IS CHEAP!:

Image


I agree with you however I think Iberia's colorful tail really makes up for the lack of imagination that is the front part of the aircraft. If you want something that's cheap looking AND boring then look no further than JAL (bringing back the crane does not make up for the boring front end) and China Eastern (looks like a cheap charter airline).


Agreed! As for IB, the tail, and ONLY the tail is the part that came out remotely right. When it was debuted, they showed a video of how they "painstakingly" developed the logo and livery, mocking all who viewed it. It really is a monumental disgrace, considering how stunning the previous livery and corporate image was. I would have rather seen IB fly with that livery another 10 years and be rebranded competently than to see that mistake every time I go to ORD :?

They were too lazy to even do this!:

Image


Boeing778X wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Um...You were saying?

I was saying: what on Earth do you find alluring about that terrible livery?

The new one isn't anything imaginative or inspiring, but it's light years beyond what they had.


Oh come on, it's not THAT terrible! Very Spanish, classy, and it's one of the only liveries I know that faded well. I'm not saying it's the best out there. Hardly, but I thought it was pretty.

The new one is weak, tasteless, uninspiring and frankly, very very boring. A second grader with half used crayons could've made something better.


Iberia's is one of the worst. With such a great colour combination they could and should have produced a truly great modern scheme. There are plenty of other IB designs out there on the web which speak to the potential.

In fact this livery is just like their owners; bland, overly corporate, risk-averse, unimaginative and cruel to staff and customers. Except the livery is cruel on the eye rather than the wallet. Their owner's only motive is profit, not good customer service, providing great products, being a great employer and doing it all with style and class. It shows.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:11 pm

TheLion wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.

As for the American livery debate, I'm amazed it's still being discussed nearly 5 years after the reveal. I'm convinced there are some people out there who just cannot process change in any way, shape or form. As well as those who genuinely did not like the new branding, not to mention those who have warmed to it in the intervening years. Let's face it, was the preceding livery really so classic ? A bare metal plane, with a red, white and blue cheatline and an eagle logo ? Will there be this amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth the next time AA reveal's a new look ? You betcha ! ;-)


Some interesting points. Disagree with you on United though, in part. I like their current scheme. It's not really dated at all. However I would improve it by rolling out the 787 wavy cheatline style across the fleet and bringing back a burgundy red and deep blue tulip as the logo, placed next to the "United" titles.


I'm not against the United scheme, just asking why the haters hate it so much ? I like the idea of a merger where the name of one partner is retained amd the livery of the other. It's a more honest concept compared to the usual US airline merger tactic of wiping one or the other airline out of the picture completely.

That said I think the UA/CO concept is somewhat flawed in it's execution. Going pan fleet with the 787 look might have been better or even creating a brand new symbol/logo that could better represent both airlines legacies ? Similarly over at American, a slightly muted tail effect with an AA and/or eagle facsimile could still be applied, as could a part length red/white/blue traditional cheatline along the underneath of the main 'American' text on the fuselage, perhaps tapering out to grey ?
 
Antarius
Posts: 1780
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:55 pm

JannEejit wrote:
Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.


IMO, the issue is the lost opportunity. Feels like smisek and co basically just took the cheap way out (a harbinger of things to come). Also United had a much better livery, so replacing it with the drab old CO livery was doubly bad to most enthusiasts. It would be akin to when WN bought Airtran, keeping the Air Tran livery and lazily stamping SOUTHWEST on the side.
19:SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI BNA
 
UGA777
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 3:40 am

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:45 pm

Antarius wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.


IMO, the issue is the lost opportunity. Feels like smisek and co basically just took the cheap way out (a harbinger of things to come). Also United had a much better livery, so replacing it with the drab old CO livery was doubly bad to most enthusiasts. It would be akin to when WN bought Airtran, keeping the Air Tran livery and lazily stamping SOUTHWEST on the side.



I personally liked the Airtran livery MUCH better than the Southwest livery, including the most recent one. Not that it matters now, but I also enjoyed flying Airtran much more than Southwest and I try to avoid Southwest if possible. I don't think AA's new livery is bad. They could have done more with it, but the tails stands out to me and lets you know what airline it is from a mile away.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:06 pm

I do think AA will need to work the double eagle back into the brand at some point since it is so Iconic. I agree the United combo is a mess. I do think a Globe is more interesting than a Tulip. They either need a new looking globe or something completely different all together.
 
rta
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:10 pm

JannEejit wrote:
Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.


I think even if CO was still around, it'd still be outdated compared to what AA and DL have today. It's not terrible, but it lacks a certain freshness.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AA's new branding

Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:14 pm

rta wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.


I think even if CO was still around, it'd still be outdated compared to what AA and DL have today. It's not terrible, but it lacks a certain freshness.

The livery/logo is simply very early-90s business (especially the old font CO used). Like you said its not terrible but it is showing its age. That said you can do some cool things with the logo and its negative space (see UA's recent interiors) but it is not reflected well in the livery which is very staid.
 
user444555
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

Re: AA's new branding

Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:46 am

Boeing778X wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Um...You were saying?

I was saying: what on Earth do you find alluring about that terrible livery?

The new one isn't anything imaginative or inspiring, but it's light years beyond what they had.


Oh come on, it's not THAT terrible! Very Spanish, classy, and it's one of the only liveries I know that faded well. I'm not saying it's the best out there. Hardly, but I thought it was pretty.

The new one is weak, tasteless, uninspiring and frankly, very very boring. A second grader with half used crayons could've made something better.


Oh, the second grader was busy working on the AA tail :lol:
 
user444555
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

Re: AA's new branding

Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:55 am

CanadaFair wrote:
gzm wrote:
Could somebody please make a graphic design putting the new eagle on the tail? After all,it has the shape of one. Make it on a 777 tail,it should fit better as it is slender and should require few changes. Thanks in anticipation!


Already done by someone http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V1yDpwB5Eyc/U ... 6890_n.jpg

and 787 https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/13/05 ... 7e6547.jpg minus fuselage logo.


I like both of these better than the messy flag. They might not be my first or second choice, but, at least it blends somewhat with the front. The double logo is redundant, but I will take redundant over gaudy any day. I understand the objections of those who do not like the logo. I just think the logo is the lesser faux pas of the two when looking at the logo and the tail.
 
user444555
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

Re: AA's new branding

Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:56 am

JannEejit wrote:
Can I ask what people hate so much about the post merger United livery ? Is it just because it's the old Continental scheme ? Is it because there's no traditional United elements other than name ? Is it just because it's dated ? Or is it the actual design that's unpopular ? I don't recall too much criticism when it was just the Continental livery.

As for the American livery debate, I'm amazed it's still being discussed nearly 5 years after the reveal. I'm convinced there are some people out there who just cannot process change in any way, shape or form. As well as those who genuinely did not like the new branding, not to mention those who have warmed to it in the intervening years. Let's face it, was the preceding livery really so classic ? A bare metal plane, with a red, white and blue cheatline and an eagle logo ? Will there be this amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth the next time AA reveal's a new look ? You betcha ! ;-)


I hope we find out if you are right soon.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos