Whoever this ends up being needs to fire the person(s) who gave it the green light and fire the agency that was probably paid big $$$ to come up with such rubbish design. Calling it “design” is actually an insult to the word. A 1st grader can pant a plane all white, paint the tail dark blue and throw 3 white slashes. What a joke.
As Av geeks we focus predominantly on the aeroplane. As business and marketing managers the focus is bent more towards the front line (electronic and print media, travel agents, web sites, events, etc.).
As such, what works on a plane may just be confusing as a medium for customers.
For instance, if Airline A wants to advertise flights to a destination point (l.e. Paris) the brand focus would be predominantly destination based rather than airline based. The trick for Airlines is to associate the brand with the destination.
QANTAS is an excellent example of how this works. People travelling to Australia often do so because of the destination, not because of QANTAS the airline. In choosing to travel to Australia they may also choose to fly QANTAS because of its connection to the destination (flying Kangaroo). As such a QANTAS advertisement for flights to Australia would be predominantly destination based (i.e. photos of Sydney Harbour) with subtle QANTAS branding (I.e. QANTAS aircraft or brand).
In contrast a frequent flyers program may be Aiine Brand focused as these programs are designed to create Brand loyalty in contrast to Brand awareness. In these situations the focus could be on priduct diferentiators such as airport lounges, the business class seat product, other benefits, etc other than the plane itself.
Again the trick is to associate the airline with a suite of produc ts, rather than an aeroplane.