"But face it, it's U-G-L-Y!! And the critics agree!"
What critics are we talking about? Unless I'm missing something, all I saw were negative comments by one person, somebody who used to work at CKS Partners, the firm that designed UA
's gray livery (and who, by the way, is no longer in the design industry but working for a research company).
And this guy doesn't even seem to know much anyway. He faulted UA
for cutting off the logo on the tail. First of all, they've been doing this on all their marketing materials for several years now. Second, many airlines today show a cut off or partial logo on the tail; there's nothing wrong with it. Some that come to mind are Northwest, America West and Continental. Third, this guy called AA
's tail "classic." Yes, their LOGO is nice (if not a little dated), but their TAIL is not classic. Classic AA
is bare metal, and AA
's tails are now all painted a very drab light gray.
This whole issue is no different than when UA
unveiled the gray livery in 1993, Saul Bass (the designer of the orange/red/blue scheme) had negative things to say about it. It seems previous designers take things too personally when their designs get changed.
The fact is, any livery is going to be subjective. Some people will like it, others won't. It's surprising how many people seem to like the gray livery now because when it was introduced there was a small uproar over how bad it was (part of that is many people don't like change).
I personally really like the new livery and think UA
did a great job. And kudos to UA744Flagship for providing what turned out to be a very accurate preview!