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.
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.
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.
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.
First it was "too much", now it's "cheap?" Some people can't be pleased, I guess
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!:
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!:
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.