spinotter wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

No, NEVER! Those colors are hideous. Purple and orange? It needs to be red/white/blue/green only for a worldwide airline. UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

FWIW, those are the same colors used in the rainbow livery. But I agree, a total rebrand would help the airline in a number of ways.

UA's current livery clearly reflects their image and their brand . . . tired and uninspired. Sure it's not bad, or horrible but it's mediocre at best just like the rest of the operation. The question is what is UA's management striving for? If it's just what they are now then just leave the livery the way it is with a minor tweak here and there. The last thing UA should do is roll out some kickass, hotshot livery, raise expectations, then fall short.

BWIAirport wrote:

spinotter wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

No, NEVER! Those colors are hideous. Purple and orange? It needs to be red/white/blue/green only for a worldwide airline. UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

FWIW, those are the same colors used in the rainbow livery. But I agree, a total rebrand would help the airline in a number of ways.

But the rainbow livery has all the primary colors as well. Magenta and orange are upsetting to me in isolation. You see what color ties they wear in the US Senate? Needs to be the same shades for the US3 - not NK for sure,, and even WN is pushing the color limits for me. I like DL, I like UA, I like HA, I even like G4. UA needs a total rethink of its brand, logo, and livery.

Both UA and CO eliminated 100 aircraft almost overnight.

I’ll say it again, those two airlines deserved each other.

I think United fixing its core issues is a much higher priority than changing the livery. Without improvements in its culture, a new livery will just become associated with the same core problems.

When did United ever stop having a new-ish livery every few years?

But, by all means, slap a new coat of paint on the wingy things if you want to waste some money. Do know that people see right through that kind of gimmicky shyte these days, and will still judge you by the way you interact with them. Nothing short of a spraying with genuine, Class A, fairy dust is ever going to change that.

The real problem is that companies with ever-changing liveries/logo's, are woefully short stacked in the area of lasting industrial design. Imagine Coca-Cola, Apple or Ford changing their logo's every ten years? Ain't going to happen, 'cause they did it right from the beginning. Not everyone's that good and lucky, but airlines certainly seem to love indulging in a bit of cosmetic corporate makeover ever so often.

And that's why LH should just have left it be as it was; they replaced an irreplaceable icon with a bland bucket of anonymous visual manure. Timelessness thrown away at the alter of some over-ambitious PR plan that, eventually, will result in nothing but added cost and an alienated workforce and customer base. Idiots.

IF they ever decide to change the underlying culture, then a new livery would be a good idea, otherwise it is a complete waste of money. There is no evidence of any culture change, despite things temporarily improving after Smisek left.

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

GODDDD, no. Please!

DarthLobster wrote:

United was the surviving character in name (if not in manangement or operating certificate), therefore the focus should be on continuing United tradition, not appeasing the smaller Continental pundits.

Bring back the damn Tulip already. Modify it, modernize it, do whatever is necessary, but that logo was intrinsic to UA’s identity just as much as the widget is to DL or Chester is to AS. Letting Smisek change it on account of CO cheapness told the world that UA’s identity didn’t matter to UA, so why should it to the customer? Well, while none of UA’s problems today are related to that livery choice, the divided/indecisive/grotesquely generic image reflects many of those issues that have made UA a less desirable and customer-friendly carrier than even a Parker-run AA. UA is now practically a poster child for poor customer service and apathetic staff and has been since the two cultures failed to blend.

United's "tradition" in the decade or so leading up to the merger included a CEO stating that "United will perish," a protracted bankruptcy, two failed attempts to establish a carrier-within-a-carrier, short-sighted fleet planning, and regularly ranking near the bottom of the industry for customer complaints. Continental was far from perfect, but they had managed to rehabilitate themselves from the disaster they were back in the 1980s and early 1990s into a profitable carrier with a fairly consistent and reasonable, though not spectacular, product.

I'm no fan of $mi$ek, but using the Continental livery & brand identity wasn't about being cheap. It was about reassuring Continental's customers that the product they'd see post-merger would be like the CO they were used to and not the post-Summer-from-Hell/extended-bankruptcy/faded-gray-planes/disgruntled-employee United dumpster fire of the 1999-2009 period. The tulip had some brand value back when United put a good product on the market; they destroyed most of the value in that brand identity all on their own in the Goodwin-Tilton years. $mi$ek & company managed to destroy the current brand identity through an uncanny ability to combine the worst of both carriers.

Virtually no one in the general public gives a damn about the tulip! The only people who care are some legacy-UA employees/retirees and fanboys on websites like this one. The tulip wouldn't drive more business to UA. More important than branding is providing a consistent, reliable product at a competitive price which customers will choose over the competition. They may also price higher if they provide a product for which customers are willing to pay more.

Branding is helpful but that's not what saved Apple from the technology graveyard, and it certainly didn't save Blackberry. Microsoft's brand didn't allow them to extend their dominance from desktop computing to mobile. The branding isn't the problem at United.

DarthLobster wrote:

Letting Smisek change it on account of CO cheapness told the world that UA’s identity didn’t matter to UA, so why should it to the customer? ... Cast the bland/characterless CO ghost aside and fully embrace the UA history and tradition

Oh please. This entire argument is done to bloody death now but I'm amazed at how many new fantasies and fallacies people manage to drum up. UA told the whole world day-in and day-out for years that they didn't give a tinker's damn for their identity by flying a fleet of aircraft that looked they'd spent half their lives parked uncovered in the windiest patch of desert they could find.

People baying for the return of "The Tulip" like it's aviation's private Jesus with the expectation it'll magically fix UA are just as deluded as the people who think that spending a couple-million dollars on CPR for the Pan-Am brand would be money well-spent.

In fact I'd go as far as to say they're more deluded, as PA's lingering death has at least had a good three-odd decades to fade from memory.

If only liveries were as appealing and colorful as soda can brandings. Imagine if your Sprite can looked the same as a Coca Cola but different colors.

jetero wrote:

Both UA and CO eliminated 100 aircraft almost overnight.

I’ll say it again, those two airlines deserved each other.

In the one or two years leading up to the merger, United downsized its mainline fleet from 460 to 360. They dumped all their Guppies (their entire 737 fleet) in the desert.

UA knew they wanted to be acquired around that time. They surmised that their probable suitors did not want to swallow a much bigger airline. This is the reason that UA dumped so many planes before they climbed into bed with CO.

The topic is discussing a possible future livery for United, not the merits of the merger. Stick to the topic or the thread will be locked.

✈️ atcsundevil

ScottB wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

Virtually no one in the general public gives a damn about the tulip! The only people who care are some legacy-UA employees/retirees and fanboys on websites like this one. The tulip wouldn't drive more business to UA.

True! But couldn't the same be said for the Delta widget, the flag on AA's planes or a what is now a black and white crane with LH? You are right on-but I think UAL needs something new and so for sake of something-go back to a tulip-even if public doesn't care (actually at this point-hate to age myself-its been SO LONG since tulip stood out as a stand alone-might be like something new to many) ...maybe like LH-dark blue tail and tulip all gold or black and white.

CarlosSi wrote:

If only liveries were as appealing and colorful as soda can brandings. Imagine if your Sprite can looked the same as a Coca Cola but different colors.

Well, airlines have to weigh the impacts of using a paint scheme that reflects vs. absorbs sunlight, for the upper half of the fuselage, at least.

Carriers like Southwest and WowAir incur extra expenses on the ground to keep the aircraft cool, since their schemes attract heat. One off paint schemes like NZ's "All Black" is the ultimate in attracting heat.

spinotter wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

No, NEVER! Those colors are hideous. Purple and orange? It needs to be red/white/blue/green only for a worldwide airline. UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

It's kind of reminiscent of Air Cal's last paint scheme.

brian415 wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

If only liveries were as appealing and colorful as soda can brandings. Imagine if your Sprite can looked the same as a Coca Cola but different colors.

Well, airlines have to weigh the impacts of using a paint scheme that reflects vs. absorbs sunlight, for the upper half of the fuselage, at least.

Carriers like Southwest and WowAir incur extra expenses on the ground to keep the aircraft cool, since their schemes attract heat. One off paint schemes like NZ's "All Black" is the ultimate in attracting heat.

I don’t know if it would save that much money, if any. The APU doesn’t adjust it’s temperature output to regulate the cabin temperature. The APU just pumps out whatever temperature air, the pilots set it to. And it pumps it out continuously. Sure, the darker color may make the aircraft a tad bit hotter inside, but costwise it really wouldn’t be much different. The heavier pigments in the paint would cause it to cost more than a lighter color. The external air doesn’t even have a temperature selector.

spinotter wrote:

UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

Doug Parker was unhappy with choice of livery implemented under predecessor, Tom Horton in 2013. One prominent media outlet said the tail looks like a shower curtain.

He opened it up to an employee vote:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/doug-parker-let-employees-vote-livery/

In the end, they kept the 2013 livery:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/american-us-airways-employees-spoken-tail-stays/

It’s interesting to see the wide range of opinions reflected in this thread, including those who like the current livery. As for my own $.02, I greatly dislike UA’s current livery. It looks too bland and the globe either needs to go or at least be reworked. They *definitely* need a fresh look.

I think that the “old” Continental Airlines of Bob Six’s day was a great, classy airline but once it went through deregulation, Frank Lorenzo and bankruptcy it just wasn’t the same airline any longer, at least to me. In my opinion, it’s time for UA to come up with an entirely new identity, one that puts their current imagine and Continental Airlines behind it. Right now, it reminds me of how it would look if American Airlines were using the old USAir livery.

Stop beating the dead horse. Yes they will get a new livery..... eventually. And yes, the tulip as loved as it was.... is dead. Let it go folks. Nothing to see here...

(edited) One thing that occurs to me is that the airline's logo does not have to be on the tail.

I am thinking that there are at least five options:

(1) put exact logo on both the fuselage and tail (like Battleship United or US Airways)

(2) put logo on the fuselage and logo cutout or logo watermark on the tail (like United Rising or current Delta)

(3) show logo only on the tail (like current UA globe)

(4) show logo only on the fuselage and company colors or symbol on the tail (like AA shower curtain)

(5) show no logo but put company colors on the tail (like WN)

I can't believe I read this entire thread. I think the OP started it for clickbait. Obviously UA will change their livery some day. So will every other airline in the world. When they announce it, I'll believe it.

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

Kind of reminds me of the old PSA airlines..

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

Goodyear wrote:

The current United livery is very classy, but quite dated. It looks great on the 787 and I think they should have adopted that revision fleet-wide.

The current United livery is the livery of Continental with United titles. It still looks ridiculous. Bring back the tulip, I say as a European, or change to something else.

The Boeing 787 is the worst looking aircraft type of the entire fleet. To me the wavy line looks childish.

brian415 wrote:

As for JL, they did the right thing by reviving the "tsuru" (crane) logo!

Business wise? I am still sad that JL returned to it's old logo. The Arc of the Sun livery (is that the correct name?) was a great successor of the previous livery. Very modern and fitting. But I am purely looking at it from a plane spotter's perspective.

UAL747422 wrote:

rnav2dlrey wrote:

UA getting a new livery is inevitable, but i don't see how LH getting a new livery has any impact on UA. care to explain that?

Well, I kinda figured because they are in the same alliance, and to me, in the airline world they seem to be siblings. But it's all up in the air.

Yeah, it's all totally emotional between the two. Actually the boards of LH and UA always confirm their respective decisions with each other.

Not! They are business partners. Not lovers.

brian415 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

Doug Parker was unhappy with choice of livery implemented under predecessor, Tom Horton in 2013. One prominent media outlet said the tail looks like a shower curtain.

He opened it up to an employee vote:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/doug-parker-let-employees-vote-livery/

In the end, they kept the 2013 livery:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/american-us-airways-employees-spoken-tail-stays/

As one of my idols once said, the third, unspoken option would've been to keep the flag, ditch that thing, and put the AA logo where the new logo resides. Keeping both logos was a terrible option, no way it could've been taken seriously, but almost won, actually. I made my own concept below of what it could've been.

https://img00.deviantart.net/dd96/i/201 ... apu04w.png

But, back on topic, I'm sure they can adopt a new logo using the same inspiration AA had (this time there's nothing to lose considering the "death star" is very much unpopular among many and doesn't speak "United) to be their new corporate identity.

MartijnNL wrote:

brian415 wrote:

As for JL, they did the right thing by reviving the "tsuru" (crane) logo!

Business wise? I am still sad that JL returned to it's old logo. The Arc of the Sun livery (is that the correct name?) was a great successor of the previous livery. Very modern and fitting. But I am purely looking at it from a plane spotter's perspective.

Too modern, I feel like its size and orientation of the rising sun should've been adjusted, maybe smaller, wasn't fond of it. Although to be fair at least that livery had more paint to it; the new one is pretty bland, but at least the tail has the cool phoenix now.

brian415 wrote:

ual747den wrote:

Well "in the coming years" seems pretty open! I would imagine that it will happen and when it does I hope that they have enough sense to bring back the old tulip logo.

Totally! Poor Saul Bass was probably rolling over in his grave in 2010 when Smisek and Tilton announced the "compromise" merger: the company would keep United's name and headquarters but the planes would take on Continental's look!

The Continental globe logo has always been a second class design in that they did not hire a logo design firm. The globe was an in-house design from their graphics arts department!

So a first class design cannot come from someone not working for an overpriced design firm?
I've seen many great logos that were done in house.

Paint the plane white.
Write United in blue on the side.
Use some combination of the Polaris accent grey or tan color with the blue to paint some stripes on the tail.
Optional - paint wing tips, engines, belly.

Here is my invoice for 10 mil.

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

Really like this idea ... not sure about the globe scheme though.

UAL747422 wrote:

A person I know who works at UA said there is a rumor flying around about a possible new or revised livery in the coming years.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw a new livery for UA. I guess it's pretty serious.

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

I like the font and the way United Airlines is printed on the fuselage on this, but the colors, no way!!

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

I like the font and the way United Airlines is printed on the fuselage on this, but the colors, no way!!

What color scheme do you think would look best? I also made one with a red, white, and blue scheme. It looks a lot like N475UA, the retro A320.

I am really tired of the CO Globe as it’s been around since 1991...27 years. My favorite livery has always been United’s 80’s colorful look....This would look great after a few modernized enhancements.

https://acapsule.com/products/united-ai ... -400-scale

In fact.... this livery is so popular it’s even sold out!

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

That looks pretty good. Send it to UA.

coairman wrote:

I am really tired of the CO Globe as it’s been around since 1991...27 years. My favorite livery has always been United’s 80’s colorful look....This would look great after a few modernized enhancements.

https://acapsule.com/products/united-ai ... -400-scale

In fact.... this livery is so popular it’s even sold out!

Is tired of 27-year-old logo

...

Wants logo that is even older.

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

Not good ... it manages to be both busy and bland at the same time. I think United will ultimately have to decide between the tulip and the globe as there's no clean way to combine them.

SPREE34 wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

That looks pretty good. Send it to UA.

Ugh no. The back half of the aircraft is way too busy. At least get rid of the globe.

BWIAirport wrote:

I'm still hoping for an updated 'retro' look, something like this:
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO ... 9LX2VZMC1R

That's cool! Makes me think of the rainbow livery

UAL747422 wrote:

Remember: This is a RUMOR. Nothing has been confirmed. Not even a date or that this is for sure happening. A person I know who works at UA said there is a rumor flying around about a possible new or revised livery in the coming years. This would make sense because of Lufthansa getting a new (and very bland) livery. I hope this is true, as I am not a big fan of the half globe livery.

Also, I would be very interested to see any possible livery designs for United. I honestly can't picture what a possible new livery would look like. Again, just a rumor.

Yea!! The next door neighbor of my step aunt who had a friend who's daughter dated the gardener (or maybe it was a painter) of the brother of a guy who she's pretty sure works for United said she heard it too! OMG.

Maybe.

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

No way, putting two logos on top of each other doesn't look good.

NYPECO wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

I like this one the best so far. It has the red, white, blue and gold, as well as the tulip:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 012191.jpg

No way, putting two logos on top of each other doesn't look good.

Agreed. People at UA need to move beyond CO/UA and start thinking as a single company. This "best of both" stuff was old in 2012 and it's even worse now.

I had a discussion in the hell that is IAD international>domestic connecting pax security with an ex-CO FA, I think in 2014 or 2015 who had an "ex-CON" tag on their bag. "We'll move on as soon as the old UA people stop treating us like garbage." It was unhelpful nonsense.

The same sentiment goes for the next corporate identity. New logo, NO tulip, NO globe. And God please, no retro 70s Saul Bass throwback.

Things have been getting a lot better, and it's time for every employee to get serious and move on. It's been EIGHT YEARS. It's time to fly.

brian415 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

UA need a total new branding, just like AA with the fuzzy flag. People here should come up with some new fresh images.

Doug Parker was unhappy with choice of livery implemented under predecessor, Tom Horton in 2013. One prominent media outlet said the tail looks like a shower curtain.

He opened it up to an employee vote:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/doug-parker-let-employees-vote-livery/

In the end, they kept the 2013 livery:
- https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/american-us-airways-employees-spoken-tail-stays/

It was a drastic change which took some time getting used to. Although going thru DFW now is impressive, the flag tail really stands out when there are many of them around.

Personally wish they had kept the scissor eagle vs that weird backslash they have now. But I think they hit a home run with the tail - it is bold and unique.

But the key is they managed to make a clear line between the old and new. United needs to do the same - the Tulip is associated with bankrupt United.. the globe with this Smisek disaster.

They should bring back a battleship grey inspired livery.

Taking some inspiration from their partners at Lufthansa would be a good start. The whole philosophy of that rebrand was thoroughly thought out and beautifully executed.

The problem with United's "Battleship Gray" was that it did not age well and once the gray paint inevitably started to fade and chip it looked like utter garbage.