Alaska Airlines "Proudly All Boeing" slogan near cockpit windows

aeromoe · Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:14 pm

Why is Alaska Airlines still wearing this slogan on the 737s since the Airbuses have been in the fleet for some time now?

-Is there a valid argument they're referring to just the 737s (having been final assembled by Boeing) while ignoring the Airbuses in the fleet?
-One could argue the slogan has the Boeing name and logo with the "Proudly all Boeing" slogan below with the slogan referring to just the Boeing name and logo.
-Or is it just a matter or time before the Airbuses are gone and Alaska feels no need to remove the slogan just to reapply it later once the fleet is again all-737s?

TTailedTiger · Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:19 pm

I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about. I take it to mean Boeing is their preferred OEM. Alaska has never ordered an Airbus. For the same reason I'd be fine if Delta put a "We Love Airbus" sticker on all of their fleet. That's what their actions say.

rajincajun01 · Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:20 pm

The official answer I was given by their corporate people was because they have not decided what they are going to do with their Airbus fleet.

Stitch · Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:23 pm

I believe the plan is to eventually return to an all-737 fleet. They are returning Airbus equipment as it comes off lease, though the MAX grounding is probably impacting this since they might need to extend leases to meet capacity needs until MAX deliveries resume.

Arion640 · Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
I believe the plan is to eventually return to an all-737 fleet. They are returning Airbus equipment as it comes off lease, though the MAX grounding is probably impacting this since they might need to extend leases to meet capacity needs until MAX deliveries resume.

Aren’t the airbuses on 12 year leases? Will be a while!

RTNOBLE · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:05 am

I always thought it would be more expensive to remove vs. what anyone cared about it. Are they stickers or painted on?

itisi · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:12 am

Not something most airlines would have on the planes given the current situation.

Gulfstream500 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:37 am

If it is painted on the aircraft, this technically implies that the aircraft itself is all Boeing...

seat1a · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:45 am

Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

EFHK · Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:21 am

To be fair, based on the safety statistics of 2019, that slogan near the "cockpit widows" is actually quite relevant.

Antarius · Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:28 am

seat1a wrote:
Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

Cost. Same reason why all planes aren't immediately painted post airline acquisition.

seat1a · Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:31 am

Cost. Same reason why all planes aren't immediately painted post airline acquisition.[/quote]

Cost for removing a decal? There's obviously more to it removing a decal from the side of an airplane, but how material of a cost could that be?! As much as the cost for discontinuing Biscoff cookies? LOL.

TTailedTiger · Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:34 am

seat1a wrote:
Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

Alaska has a good relationship with Boeing. Why would they want to potentially create ill will by ripping off the decals? I'm sure Boeing is going to give Alaska whatever sort of compensation they want for the Max delays. If they get a very good deal on a new order then I'm sure they can sublease the Airbus fleet. The A321neo is in high demand and there's nothing in the AS network that is dependent on its capabilities. Alaska may even make a nice profit subleasing them.

nine4nine · Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:54 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
seat1a wrote:
Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

Alaska has a good relationship with Boeing. Why would they want to potentially create ill will by ripping off the decals? I'm sure Boeing is going to give Alaska whatever sort of compensation they want for the Max delays. If they get a very good deal on a new order then I'm sure they can sublease the Airbus fleet. The A321neo is in high demand and there's nothing in the AS network that is dependent on its capabilities. Alaska may even make a nice profit subleasing them.

Because it’s misleading and false advertisement. If 320’s are wearing AS colors they aren’t “all Boeing”. If the Horizon EJets and CRJ’s are flying full AS branding they aren’t “all Boeing”.

If a fast food chain Like McDonalds claims they only carry Coca Cola products but have Pepsi on fountain as well, they aren’t solely a Coca Cola Products vendor.

antoniemey · Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:25 am

nine4nine wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
seat1a wrote:
Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

Alaska has a good relationship with Boeing. Why would they want to potentially create ill will by ripping off the decals? I'm sure Boeing is going to give Alaska whatever sort of compensation they want for the Max delays. If they get a very good deal on a new order then I'm sure they can sublease the Airbus fleet. The A321neo is in high demand and there's nothing in the AS network that is dependent on its capabilities. Alaska may even make a nice profit subleasing them.

Because it’s misleading and false advertisement. If 320’s are wearing AS colors they aren’t “all Boeing”. If the Horizon EJets and CRJ’s are flying full AS branding they aren’t “all Boeing”.

If a fast food chain Like McDonalds claims they only carry Coca Cola products but have Pepsi on fountain as well, they aren’t solely a Coca Cola Products vendor.

But if all corporate McDonald's locations serve Coke while some franchisee serves Pepsi (I wish), McDonald's corporation is still all Coke.

I'd be willing to bet it's painted on, since it'd be a simple stencil job as part of the paint process... and that means it's not peeling off a decal, it'd be masking off that section of the plane, stripping the upper layer(s) of paint, and repainting.

Unless they're using "Proudly All Boeing" as an actual marketing slogan in their advertising, having it painted on their Boeing aircraft is not false advertising.

NWAROOSTER · Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:29 am

Maybe when the 737 MAXs start flying Boeing might take the A320s in on trade on a one for one basis. They might start with the already built 737 MAXS. Only time will tell. :old:

SafetyGuy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:59 am

Well when I read the title with the last word, I thought someone was being a bit harsh overall...

tiptoe42 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:12 am

Maybe they will change it to read
“Proudly mostly Horizon and Skywest”

mooseofspruce · Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:40 am

seat1a wrote:
Antarius wrote:
seat1a wrote:
Those leases are long, it's obvious they fly Airbus planes, and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now. Why not take the decal off for now, it just creates an unnecessary discussion about Boeing/MAX, and the fact they do fly Airbus, etc. Details, details, details.

Cost. Same reason why all planes aren't immediately painted post airline acquisition.

Cost for removing a decal? There's obviously more to it removing a decal from the side of an airplane, but how material of a cost could that be?! As much as the cost for discontinuing Biscoff cookies? LOL.

Doesn't seem like it stopped AS from removing the word "virgin" from L-VX A319 N522VA's name "the 1 year-old virgin" several months prior to repainting it either.

TTailedTiger · Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:46 am

mooseofspruce wrote:
seat1a wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Cost. Same reason why all planes aren't immediately painted post airline acquisition.

Cost for removing a decal? There's obviously more to it removing a decal from the side of an airplane, but how material of a cost could that be?! As much as the cost for discontinuing Biscoff cookies? LOL.

Doesn't seem like it stopped AS from removing the word "virgin" from L-VX A319 N522VA's name "the 1 year-old virgin" several months prior to repainting it either.

Did VX seriously name an aircraft "the 1 year-old virgin"? If so that seems in very poor taste. Pretty disgusting really.

cschleic · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:10 am

It's there because it was on those planes before they acquired VX and they haven't had reason to repaint them yet. Horizon is a separate company...their planes say "proudly operated by Horizon Air" (even though they're in Alaska livery) and I don't see anyone complaining about that. Same idea though...applies to that company.

727LOVER · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:10 am

TTailedTiger wrote:

Did VX seriously name an aircraft "the 1 year-old virgin"? If so that seems in very poor taste. Pretty disgusting really.

Looks like it.

Can CLEARLY see it on this pic.

seabosdca · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:10 am

I doubt the decals will be around too much longer, because I expect the A321neo to become a permanent part of the fleet. A319s and A320s will go away when leases expire, as has already been announced.

N776AU · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:13 am

aeromoe wrote:
Why is Alaska Airlines still wearing this slogan on the 737s since the Airbuses have been in the fleet for some time now?

Because their M.O. is to dump the Airbuses (Airbii?) at the first available opportunity.

TTailedTiger wrote:
mooseofspruce wrote:
Did VX seriously name an aircraft "the 1 year-old virgin"? If so that seems in very poor taste. Pretty disgusting really.

They also at one time had flight 69 between Washington and San Francisco. Pretty correct, actually.

DLASFlyer · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:50 am

It's not a matter of removing the slogan. They are still actively having it painted on new build MAXs years after acquiring Airbus birds. It's bizarre and completely untruthful.

Elementalism · Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:52 am

Why when I step onto a Delta A220 it has CS100 embedded on the floor of the door? Who cares.

thewizbizman · Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:27 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about. I take it to mean Boeing is their preferred OEM. Alaska has never ordered an Airbus. For the same reason I'd be fine if Delta put a "We Love Airbus" sticker on all of their fleet. That's what their actions say.

Over 60% of their fleet is Boeing. They didn't operate Airbus until 2010 due to the Northwest merger. The only exception was in the 90s that acquired some Airbus A300s from Pan Am but they never got flown.

mga707 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:32 am

thewizbizman wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about. I take it to mean Boeing is their preferred OEM. Alaska has never ordered an Airbus. For the same reason I'd be fine if Delta put a "We Love Airbus" sticker on all of their fleet. That's what their actions say.

Over 60% of their fleet is Boeing. They didn't operate Airbus until 2010 due to the Northwest merger. The only exception was in the 90s that acquired some Airbus A300s from Pan Am but they never got flown.

Not true. Delta did acquire all of Pan Am's A310s (not A300s) in 1991 when they took over PA's European/Middle Eastern routes shortly before PA went bust. And they certainly did fly them for a number of years in full Delta colors. Check the photo database, there are plenty of shots of them.

767333ER · Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:57 am

And they say fanboy decisions aren’t made at airlines

dampfnudel · Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:05 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about. I take it to mean Boeing is their preferred OEM. Alaska has never ordered an Airbus. For the same reason I'd be fine if Delta put a "We Love Airbus" sticker on all of their fleet. That's what their actions say.

For Delta, the more appropriate sticker would be “We love a good deal”, amirite?

chrisair · Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:44 am

Good lord y’all get so worked up about the strangest things.

tiptoe42 wrote:
Maybe they will change it to read
“Proudly mostly Horizon and Skywest”

A better slogan would be “fifth best” but that probably wouldn’t jive with the new stickers by the forward entry door.

N776AU wrote:
Because their M.O. is to dump the Airbuses (Airbii?) at the first available opportunity.

And now they find themselves short airplanes.

TTailedTiger · Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:05 am

767333ER wrote:
And they say fanboy decisions aren’t made at airlines

If it were really an issue I'm sure the shareholders would have brought it with the BOD. It would be equally silly if Spirit ever put "Proudly All Airbus" and someone complained. What Alaska should put is "Proudly All 737". They don't even want a second Boeing type in the fleet.

Lootess · Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:16 am

I figure it was never contested, they had the current paint scheme before buying VA, and they aren't going to spend a dime to paint over a small section of the 737 aircraft.

AS still took the A321s after the merger. Second they haven't made a large MAX order, who is to say they are still a sure thing, they haven't decided one way or the other.

kmz · Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:53 am

we live in post-truth times, they can write whatever they want on their planes; someone will always be able to provide a ‚true‘ explanation

chiad · Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:57 am

As of now the 30 A320neos on order is more likely to be delivered than their 32 MAX planes.
This will be interesting if the grounding drags on for another year or more.

oldannyboy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:33 am

aeromoe wrote:
Why is Alaska Airlines still wearing this slogan on the 737s since the Airbuses have been in the fleet for some time now?

-Is there a valid argument they're referring to just the 737s (having been final assembled by Boeing) while ignoring the Airbuses in the fleet?
-One could argue the slogan has the Boeing name and logo with the "Proudly all Boeing" slogan below with the slogan referring to just the Boeing name and logo.
-Or is it just a matter or time before the Airbuses are gone and Alaska feels no need to remove the slogan just to reapply it later once the fleet is again all-737s?

Instead, as always, I take issue at the all-American fixation with being patriotic and "proud" to be buying us-built commodities, never mind the fact that probably 60% of the content is internationally sourced. I find this old-age mentality very irritating, especially in the world of aviation, that should be international and broad-minded by definition.
I find it a 'spit in the face' to the rest of the world.
Also, not sure there's much to be proud of flying Boeings these days, but that's another story...
Time for the US to re-think their mentality, and start thinking outside of the proverbial [corporate] box.

oldannyboy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:39 am

DLASFlyer wrote:
It's not a matter of removing the slogan. They are still actively having it painted on new build MAXs years after acquiring Airbus birds. It's bizarre and completely untruthful.

But that is precisely a marketing tactic, aimed at pleasing and enticing a 'certain kind' of American clientele, those who still think they should" proudly buying American". It's the usual US-centric rhetoric about how American things are better, and the US is the best place in the world, the soldiers are all heroes, and blah blah blah...

TTailedTiger · Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:44 am

oldannyboy wrote:
aeromoe wrote:
Why is Alaska Airlines still wearing this slogan on the 737s since the Airbuses have been in the fleet for some time now?

-Is there a valid argument they're referring to just the 737s (having been final assembled by Boeing) while ignoring the Airbuses in the fleet?
-One could argue the slogan has the Boeing name and logo with the "Proudly all Boeing" slogan below with the slogan referring to just the Boeing name and logo.
-Or is it just a matter or time before the Airbuses are gone and Alaska feels no need to remove the slogan just to reapply it later once the fleet is again all-737s?

Instead, as always, I take issue at the all-American fixation with being patriotic and "proud" to be buying us-built commodities, never mind the fact that probably 60% of the content is internationally sourced. I find this old-age mentality very irritating, especially in the world of aviation, that should be international and broad-minded by definition.
I find it a 'spit in the face' to the rest of the world.
Also, not sure there's much to be proud of flying Boeings these days, but that's another story...
Time for the US to re-think their mentality, and start thinking outside of the proverbial [corporate] box.

Alaska is not a state-owned airline. They don't have to give a second thought to any of your issues with them. If "Proudly All Boeing" offends the people of any of the international locations they fly to then they can deny them access to their airspace. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.

Olddog · Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:49 am

Considering Airbus backlog, AS can go back to an all Boeing planes, it will be hardly noticed except for some fanboys.

chrisp390 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:53 am

People say the reason is cost to paint over the existing decals. NO. They are actively painting it on new MAX 737’s.

That is what I find outrageous and flat out lying. They could change it to proud Boeing partner or Proud Boeing operator for X years, but instead they insist on lying with this same nonsense phrase!

oldannyboy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:20 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
aeromoe wrote:
Why is Alaska Airlines still wearing this slogan on the 737s since the Airbuses have been in the fleet for some time now?

-Is there a valid argument they're referring to just the 737s (having been final assembled by Boeing) while ignoring the Airbuses in the fleet?
-One could argue the slogan has the Boeing name and logo with the "Proudly all Boeing" slogan below with the slogan referring to just the Boeing name and logo.
-Or is it just a matter or time before the Airbuses are gone and Alaska feels no need to remove the slogan just to reapply it later once the fleet is again all-737s?

Instead, as always, I take issue at the all-American fixation with being patriotic and "proud" to be buying us-built commodities, never mind the fact that probably 60% of the content is internationally sourced. I find this old-age mentality very irritating, especially in the world of aviation, that should be international and broad-minded by definition.
I find it a 'spit in the face' to the rest of the world.
Also, not sure there's much to be proud of flying Boeings these days, but that's another story...
Time for the US to re-think their mentality, and start thinking outside of the proverbial [corporate] box.

Alaska is not a state-owned airline. They don't have to give a second thought to any of your issues with them. If "Proudly All Boeing" offends the people of any of the international locations they fly to then they can deny them access to their airspace. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.

Thanks. You prove my point exactly TTail.
And yes I know they are not state-owned. How would they, in the land of corporations!? The state doesn't own anything, clearly. But the corporations own EVERYTHING, people and minds included.

Virtual737 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:25 am

seat1a wrote:
and Boeing's rep is in the toilet right now..

He/she can probably stay there for a few more weeks at least.

Bongodog49 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:53 am

If only Alaska Airlines were the only offender for ridiculous slogans on aircraft:

Remember "4 engines 4 longhaul" and "No way BA-AA" ?

These of course were in part a retort to "World's favourite airline"

Seemingly marketing departments are allowed to not only dream up catchy slogans, but then put them in places where they are not only very hard/expensive to remove, but also leaves the company open to many forms of criticism and/or wits changing the words.

oldannyboy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:43 am

Also, they use this slogan because being a mostly domestic carrier, they 'can get away with it', but also do cater to large numbers of a certain type of American, for whom the phrase might be catchy, and might make them jolt with silly patriotism upon boarding...
Bear in mind that for most people outside the US, Alaska Airlines is only an insignificant and obscure domestic carrier that most people won't ever get to see in their whole life.
You wouldn't possibly imagine ANY international carrier of ANY other nation paint something so utterly silly, rhetorical and nationalistic as that!
It would be not only socially un-acceptable, but would be considered politically incorrect. Again, in aviation I'd dare say that nothing -NO SINGLE PRODUCT- is 100% made in ONE country. At lest the raw materials are sourced elsewhere, and easily most of the manufacturing is made in foreign countries.

Can you imagine if BA, or Virgin, would write something along the lines of "proudly using Rolls-Royce engines"?? I mean, c'mon. Britain used to have slogans like these in the 1950s, like the one coined for cars "buy British, and be proud of it". Now it would not even pass the test of a local primary school board!
...Or Air France saying "proudly flying Toulouse-assembled Airbus jets" ???
Folks, you wouldn't even see a Russian airline in Putin's Russia writing "proudly flying Tupolev jets"!!!!

Really, Alaska's marketing phrase is out of time, out of touch with global realities, and reeks of old-school right-wing, rhetorical, paternalistic, nationalistic sentiments.
It's really time to move on for a part of America guys.... it's sad that people can't even wake up to it, and see how much wrong there is with this stupid phrase.

tiptoe42 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:45 am

chiad wrote:
As of now the 30 A320neos on order is more likely to be delivered than their 32 MAX planes.
This will be interesting if the grounding drags on for another year or more.

That is a 100% inaccurate statement

oldannyboy · Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:59 am

tiptoe42 wrote:
chiad wrote:
As of now the 30 A320neos on order is more likely to be delivered than their 32 MAX planes.
This will be interesting if the grounding drags on for another year or more.

That is a 100% inaccurate statement

Inaccurate as in "I don't like it, so it's not right", maybe??.. :rotfl:

What makes you think that the 32 MAXes are going to get delivered sooner that the NEOs, other than proud wishful thinking?

I personally can't wait for the MAX to get its fix [IF -big IF- and when], but sadly I don't see it necessarily as a quick 'n easy fix just about to happen in a few weeks.... Even if they do find a somewhat easy 'software fix' I bet you it will take MONTHS before the FAA and the worldwide authorities are happy to re-certify the MAX.... It ain't gonna be easy. Just sayin'....I could be wrong...

thewizbizman · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:13 pm

mga707 wrote:
thewizbizman wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about. I take it to mean Boeing is their preferred OEM. Alaska has never ordered an Airbus. For the same reason I'd be fine if Delta put a "We Love Airbus" sticker on all of their fleet. That's what their actions say.

Over 60% of their fleet is Boeing. They didn't operate Airbus until 2010 due to the Northwest merger. The only exception was in the 90s that acquired some Airbus A300s from Pan Am but they never got flown.

Not true. Delta did acquire all of Pan Am's A310s (not A300s) in 1991 when they took over PA's European/Middle Eastern routes shortly before PA went bust. And they certainly did fly them for a number of years in full Delta colors. Check the photo database, there are plenty of shots of them.

Apologies, I admit my knowledge of the Pan Am A310s was not as fresh as it should be to make that claim. Thank you for correcting me.

MartijnNL · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:23 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Did VX seriously name an aircraft "the 1 year-old virgin"? If so that seems in very poor taste. Pretty disgusting really.

Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me. Quite appropriate actually for an airline with the word virgin in its name. I guess "the 40 year-old-virgin" would be more questionable.

fanoftristars · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:31 pm

I thought the “Proudly All Boeing” had more to do with a nod to their hometown of Seattle and less to do with “buy American” type mentality.

aviatorcraig · Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:56 pm

fanoftristars wrote:
I thought the “Proudly All Boeing” had more to do with a nod to their hometown of Seattle and less to do with “buy American” type mentality.

For the non-Americans amongst us, how long has Seattle been in Alaska? :lol:

Maybe they should rebrand themselves as Washington Airlines or something.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net