Hi all,

I was watching the cabin refresh video that UA just released for the new First Class seats. I noticed that on the cabin bulkhead, UA added a pattern of filled in globes. While I love the old tulip for nostalgia's sake, I think this design looks VERY classy. Do you think UA will continue to tweak the logo until it is time to put a new livery on the planes. A metamorphosis instead of a completely new brand, if you will? How would you tweak the globe to modernize it (PLEASE: don't say "Switch it back to the tulip." Let's ignore the tulip for this conversation.

Check out the video here:
http://youtu.be/m0fcpclVjSE

Well, before this thread becomes flamebait, I'll weigh in. I promise to keep all biases aside.

I think UA should rebrand, and they should retire the CO Globe livery.

I do think they should still keep a globe design in some form, and really modernize thier appearance. CO's livery is very classy, but it's not super modern.

I really love Atlas Air's livery. A Eurowhite livery with a blue/violet tail and engines with a thin lined goldenrod globe (with the Atlas figure, of course), with matching colored titles. I think UA should have a similar livery   A belly logo would be nice too!

I think, in terms of branding, that would really help. A custom font would add some uniqueness too. Saturated colors are a must.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 1): I think UA should rebrand, and they should retire the CO Globe livery.

I agree. A rebranding is really needed.

I must be the only person on this site in favor of keeping the Globe. I know that the Tulip was part of the UA brand for many years, and I completely get ex-CO employees resenting a new airline using their old airline's brand. However, I think that the use of a Globe makes much more makreting sense, especially internationally. The Globe suggests a world-wide, far reaching route network. But the Tulip represents...a stylized tulip that isn't instantly recognizable as tulip. It sort of looks like a 'U' for United, but other than that it doesn't have much going for it IMO. The CO livery with UA titles slapped on looks lazy, and it isn't that spectacular of a livery in the first place. However, for a huge airline that wants to cater to international as well as domestic customers, the Globe is great. Maybe a re-branding could include an evolution of 'rising blue' combined with the globe. Their brand is already heavy on blue, so it could work.

Another problem the CO livery has is that, like WN's canyon blue, its prone to fading.

Brand new, the blue is really rich and the gold is vibrant, especially in the late day sun. After a few years, the gold turns tannish and the blue fades.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 3):

It doesn't look like a tulip to you because it isn't. It looks like a U to you because it is. "Tulip" is a nickname. It's always been a "U" for United. And that's why it worked so well.

As for the "new" stuff, I found it funny that on the bulkheads they blanked out the globe completely and it just looks like a bunch of boomerangs. There really isn't much you can do with the globe, it is a half globe of clip art in a box. Designers are often told to let a logo stand on its own, and it's obvious they need a completely new image and logo.

I think the branding they have going on right now is good. The signs, the check in areas, the United Club, the ads, the bulk heads... all look good. The only thing that looks dated, IMO, is the livery on the plane. It doesn't need a total overhaul (the Globe is perfectly fine) but it could use a small face lift to make something that is more exciting. Even if they just painted the gray areas on the bottom of their aircraft to blue, I think it would look a lot better

I don't see a need for UA to change the globe logo, especially right after a merger. If they were to come up with a new livery, it should be a variation of the globe and possibly a curvy gold stripe like what's on the 787.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 5): It doesn't look like a tulip to you because it isn't. It looks like a U to you because it is. "Tulip" is a nickname. It's always been a "U" for United. And that's why it worked so well.

'Tulip' is a nickname that originated on these forums, I believe, and I've never liked it. Despite the nickname, it's always been intended to look like a stylized 'U' that also looks like a ribbon bending upwards as well as a stylized evolution of the previous shield logo. Saul Bass knew what he was doing.

The CO globe isn't nearly as clever or original. I mean, let's admit it: As nice as it looks, it's incredibly generic. You could apply just about any airline name next to the logo and it would match up.

Are there ways that the globe logo could be reconceived to refresh the brand? Probably. But there's only so much you can do with the concept of a globe to create a unique logo.

Also, I don't believe that a logo needs to literally represent the market an airline serves. In other words, just because United is a global airline doesn't mean their logo needs to be a globe.

A truly proper logo is a unique symbol that uniquely identifies and represents the company for which it was created. I'm repeating adjectives here, but that's kind of the point. The old Saul Bass logo was uniquely and undeniably 'United.'

Unfortunately, that type of timeless symbolism in logo design has become a lost art, giving way instead to logos that are 'trendy' and destined to be changed within a few years because a new trend has come along.

If and when United rebarnds, it should be a clean-sheet branding, but something that symbolizes the company just as well as its respective UA and CO predecessors.

(Or, bring back the Meatball  )

Quoting jbo (Reply 8):

I agree with pretty much everything you said, though the Tulip nickname didn't originate here. I've seen UA employees call it that for years, long before a.net, and the name became widespread after that.

Quoting jbo (Reply 8): (Or, bring back the Meatball )

Yes, why not.

There was certainly nothing wrong with it.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Robert M. Campbell

Thank you, posters. It's a U, not a tulip. (For the record, Turkish Airlines does have a tulip.)

United's U on the Saul Bass livery was quite clear, a 3-D "U". But as they changed liveries, parts of the U started getting chopped off, loosing it's clarity. Delta's hacked-up Widget has similarly been pushed out of recognition.

Anyway, I think a company logo should give you a clue as to which company it is. The Globe could be anything if we didn't already know it from CO and United. Show it to a non-airline geek and they won't know who it is. CO's meatball wasn't that clear, but Pan Am's was. The former "AA" logo with Eagle was very recognizable, while the new Flight Symbol is less so. Eastern's Hockey Stick : what was that?

So a new United branding would serve if it was clearly identifiable. Either a "word mark" with the full name (like Landor & Associates did for AirCal), or bring back the U in a new form. I still like cheat lines over the Euro-whites and billboards, but I guess I'm behind the times.

How about United's 1950's-1960's shield logo?

Quoting jbo (Reply 8): The CO globe isn't nearly as clever or original. I mean, let's admit it: As nice as it looks, it's incredibly generic. You could apply just about any airline name next to the logo and it would match up.

In its context it was very clever and original. In 1990, computer graphics and computerized graphic design were really just coming around to public awareness. The globe looked high-tech, modern, and progressive.

25 years later, computers can produce imagery that is sometimes indistinguishable from photography and a wireframe globe is neither high-tech, modern, nor progressive.

I think it looks great.

However, the tulip is so nice I just wish it could come back in some capacity. Saul Bass was a genius.

What about keeping the globe as the overall logo and using the tulip for express flights or as a symbol for United Economy? ...implying the globe is the overall brand including a higher level of service while the tulip invokes a "classic" United offering?





Pu.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 3): I must be the only person on this site in favor of keeping the Globe.

No, you're not alone. It's a classy, modern look that conveys professionalism and a global reach. It should be retained, but perhaps refreshed a bit in another 5-10 years.

Right now, UA needs to focus on their ontime performance first, employee engagement second, and everything else will fall in line.

THEN you refresh your brand once you're firing on all cylinders, operationally.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 11): Eastern's Hockey Stick : what was that?

EA's logo was the Falcon, not the cheatline.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 14): EA's logo was the Falcon, not the cheatline.

Yes, but it was a modern graphic you had to figure out or be told what it was. And on a view of tails lined up, the falcon wasn't seen. I'd be happy if they brought back the classic falcon of the DC-7 days.

Quoting 815Oceanic (Thread starter): I was watching the cabin refresh video that UA just released for the new First Class seats. I noticed that on the cabin bulkhead, UA added a pattern of filled in globes. While I love the old tulip for nostalgia's sake, I think this design looks VERY classy. Do you think UA will continue to tweak the logo until it is time to put a new livery on the planes. A metamorphosis instead of a completely new brand, if you will? How would you tweak the globe to modernize it (PLEASE: don't say "Switch it back to the tulip." Let's ignore the tulip for this conversation.

Never know what the future will bring.

Let's see though, hmmmmmmm,

American has the Eagle

Delta has the Widget

Southwest has the Heart

Hmmmm,

Maybe something along the lines of a star rising above a globe



Or change it completely to a rising star, and it would be easy to add stars to the tail for each Star Alliance member



Could shorten the name to USA for United Star Alliance,

As a sUA employee, I don't mind the globe logo. What I don't care for is the 1990's sCO paint scheme.

I noticed the new branding on napkins 2 months ago when I flew UA. Although much nicer than what they previously had, I still don't think its attractive. UA should really focus on improving itself before launching a new brand, otherwise the new one will be just as tarnished as the current.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 16): Maybe something along the lines of a star rising above a globe

Not a bad thought. UA has featured stars prominently in its branding in the past (albeit a very distant past)

I personnally think the Globe should stay, but should be modernized. Add some new refreshing colours to it. OR at the very least get RID of that AWFUL UNITED titles at the front of the aircraft. Make it look like you werent too lazy to repaint the entire aircraft. Change the cheat lines. I think the Globe is Iconic, growing up in the North East always saw the Globe.

The new pattern you see was introduced on the paper napkin, and I'm sure it was an accident as it was their 3rd attempt to print on the globe on it. Now it's used inside the amenity kit. It came from the globe and from it's detail not printing well (filling in, or falling away) thus leaving just the negative space around it..BINGO...a new design motif!

Basically, the CO globe is NOT a symbol, it's a tail decoration. Lippincott (ironically and uncharacteristically for that agency) fell for a computer trick, in a new version of Adobe Illustrator, that was new about 25 years ago (thats why it appears so dated) and I know because I had friends there. It looked great on the tail but NEVER worked in the box, which was an afterthought when they realized they should have started at step one: design the logo/symbol. It has never worked in small application and is also why it doesn't reproduce well at all with contemporary technology.

Lippencott has always been a very disciplined "Corporate Identity" branding company, perhaps they saw in their CO work in 1991 a way of pushing their own design envelop, which otherwise had always been VERY conservative and sticks to the most pragmatic teachings of identity design. L&M (as they were called at the time) focuses on brand strategy more than than design, although they have created some great work over the decades (Pentagram and Landor are far more creatively driven, Futurebrand has been lost in the middle since the days of Dieffenbach Elkins (FB's first incarnation). Purist CI agencies and designers (like Saul Bass, Chermayeff & Geismar and often Walter Landor) created SYMBOLS. Like Delta's widget,, Alitalia A, Landor's NW, BA had a decorative tail but Landor created the "speed wing word-mark" as BA's branding, Cathay Pacific, Landor's VARIG, or the Chase octagon or the real globe "Pan Am" (both ala: C&G). There are many globe/world logo's that are SYMBOLS. Example; to my Brazilian friends, the Bradesco symbol. Once the symbol or word-mark is settled, decoration is great (Etihad).

This new thing United has attached themselves to is the result of a happy accident (that is if you like it) - it was never a SYMBOL, because the tail decoration was born first then retro fitted into a BOX, so it never looked as good as the tail.

No, I don't like it. Yes, I do love the "flying U" (or tulip, which was a moniker given by employees) My opinion was it should have never been tossed out in the first place, stupid branding move driven by the cost of painting. But now that that asset has been discarded, I believe, while a real pity, would be a serious strategic challenge and could potentially create more confusion with the general pop - the LAST thing poor United needs.

I worked as an Executive Creative Director at Landor for 23 years and lead identity assignments all over the world. I may know little else in world, but I do know branding.

Sure, United can refresh it's "House Style" now, and I think that is a fabulous idea. I do like the new burnished metal plaque in the new First Class seat video a lot. I'm not at all fond of this little finger-nail clipping thingy they grabbed onto, and I don't think people will see it's the negative space of the "Globe in a Box" bit it sure as hell beats the sea of nothingness they have now!

In ALL HONESTY, I learned a "globe in a box" lesson myself when I made the mistake of doing once on a MAJOR global brand, and in that case we all fell in love with a decorative application vs creating the globe symbol first, then pull it apart for decorative branding applications.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19): Not a bad thought. UA has featured stars prominently in its branding in the past (albeit a very distant past)

My favorite United livery.

The globe would've looked good and modern on this livery.

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 23):

Except for the Perpetua, it is more United in it's looks. I agree with you! BUT...Then they would have had to paint the ENITE FLEET, vs less than half with the Frankenstein livery they have today.

Get rid of the globe and get rid of the tulip . Come up with something entirely new . Just like AA did .

Agree it looks classy. The globe can be done well but this could be too little too late. IMO they need something totally new but I dig the dark blue.

Also weird that the video depicts a sky interior when they specify that it will debut in Airbus aircraft. Then again the sky interior really is the best narrow body interior of all time.

I get what people are talking about, but the brand really starts with what happens for the customer from the time they interact with the website to the airport to the gate and onboard the aircraft all the way to bag claim at the other end. That's the real brand. That's what people remember. They then identify that experience with a logo which is often construed as the "brand". Nike is not Nike because of a swoosh. Michael Jordan had to deliver the goods of being Michael Jordan before it became a recognizable symbol.

If it was A+ customer centered service reproduced reliably over a period of time, the logo (or as you guys refer to it as the "brand") could be an asterisk and people would love it and recognize it for what it represents. Just my 2 cents.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 21):

Wow. Many thanks for your post. From time to time a real expert shares his knowledge and makes this forum useful.








Pu.

I really love the plaque. And the silver and blue globe looks awesome. This a small step in the right direction for UA. I'm only a little worried on how comfortable the seats are going to be because they just look too similar to the new slimlines which are hard as a rock.

BTW, I kinda have the feeling that this is to cover the bad PR UA has gotten over the scandal that lead to the listing of Smisek and two other executives.

I actually think the negative space globe thing they have going on the bulkhead panels has a nice vibe to it. I could see them working with that somehow into a new logo. Long term, if there is a rebranding they don't have to do a complete overhaul, more of an evolution. The thing I can't stand about the current livery is that the gold is so tacky. Whatever they do, if they focus on the shades of blue and grey like they are with the new cabins, they might be on to something

Quoting delta88 (Reply 20): I personnally think the Globe should stay, but should be modernized.

Did you see the plaque in the video?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 29): I really love the plaque. And the silver and blue globe looks awesome.

Yup, gold is just a downright tacky and dated color, it was even dated when CO introduced it. I think even better than the silver and blue globe is the plaque and the globe the video shows right before it which is blue and midnight blue/black.

I must admit the FC cabin and seats look way better and more comfortable in the video than in the still pics on hub united or whatever it is called.

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 23): The globe would've looked good and modern on this livery.

That actually looks very good.

No matter what new livery UA comes up with now or down the road, there will be plenty of people here to shoot it down.. There will also be the people that come up out of the wood work that wish they would have kept the current UAL branding..

IMHO

The image to the left at 0:29 would be a neat new logo. Simple and somewhat modern looking. Keep the United font, add blue engines and perhaps a hint or two of gold or silver. Again just my two cents..

https://youtu.be/m0fcpclVjSE?t=29s

The negative space I think works because it calls back to the globe but also evokes the image of a plane and "moving forward" arrow, not unlike DL and AA. I just did a quick photoshop to match it up with the wordmark, using the D to complete the square. It would probably need some tweaks to the typeface but otherwise I think it looks pretty good.. Combine with a new livery that axes the gold (I could see them doing a tile pattern on the tail a la B6) and you've got something fresh but ultimately not radically different.

Quoting afcjets (Reply 31): up, gold is just a downright tacky and dated color

Gold can work if executed well. It's just not in style anymore. UA can switch to white, metallic blue, and silver with some gold accents here and there. It's just not a stylish primary color any more.

Quoting elbandgeek (Reply 34):

Get that copyrighted and submit it to UA. You are on to something!

I like it, nice and refreshing. My only gripe with United's branding is the way they just plaster UNITED on the side of the aircraft. It feels like something more can be done there.

The problems with the current UA branding are two-fold:

1. First, for those of us who pay attention to airlines, it looks incredibly lazy. They literally just swapped out the CO titles and replaced them with the wordmark from Rising Blue. While I think the intentions were good (combining the well-known UA brand and the well-known CO brand), it just looks very half-assed. From afar it just looks like the most creative thing they could think of to do was slap UA titles on the CO branding.

2. it's dated and confusing. A lot of companies over the years have combined their branding after a merger to maintain awareness that the companies have merged (SprintNextel comes to mind) and then subsequently dropped the killed-off brand after everyone's memories have faded a little (again, SprintNextel is now just Sprint). It's been five years, and although they're technically operating on the CO certificate now CO has been dead for about four years. Time to think about moving on. Aside from employees, a-nuts, and former OnePass members, the majority of the flying public doesn't even remember CO anymore. It's time to forge ahead with UA branding.

Quoting ramprat74 (Reply 23): The globe would've looked good and modern on this livery.

Somehow the Globe looks like a negative or blueprint and is all in blue. There is no accent color. I hate the gradient changes from blue to white on the cleatline, that is a old Photoshop maneuver.

The majority of UA planes have just been painted and stations updated. At least wait until the sUA plane need a repaint before paiting over 700 mainline and 500 UAX aircraft.

I think the titles make a big difference. There is something about that font, especially the U, that I just don't like. It looks worst on the 777.

The titles are especially important on a livery like United's, since the globe isn't really worth showing off. It's quite generic for an int'l airline as others noted above.

Think of Azerbaijan Airlines, their Times New Roman-esque font is awkward, but with all the blue and beautiful curves it's easy to overlook.

[Edited 2015-09-13 21:53:49]

I'm actually confused by the shades of blue United uses. Their planes seem to be painted in a darker shade of blue than the logo with the globe anywhere else. The "United blue" seems to be much more vivid in the branding than on the plane.

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 3): I must be the only person on this site in favor of keeping the Globe. I know that the Tulip was part of the UA brand for many years, and I completely get ex-CO employees resenting a new airline using their old airline's brand. However, I think that the use of a Globe makes much more makreting sense, especially internationally. The Globe suggests a world-wide, far reaching route network. But the Tulip represents...a stylized tulip that isn't instantly recognizable as tulip. It sort of looks like a 'U' for United, but other than that it doesn't have much going for it IMO. The CO livery with UA titles slapped on looks lazy, and it isn't that spectacular of a livery in the first place. However, for a huge airline that wants to cater to international as well as domestic customers, the Globe is great. Maybe a re-branding could include an evolution of 'rising blue' combined with the globe. Their brand is already heavy on blue, so it could work.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************
I work For United as well as being a shareholder. Changing a paint and interior scheme is pricey and an Unnecessary expense at this point in time..
We haven't even integrated the company systems on to One Platform yet. We have systems that work and are changing them to a system that might Half ass work..
That's a sure waste of money Just for Somebody's EGO Boost. Jeff should have been fired for THAT alone.
Getting our Internal house in order is what we need LONG before a new Paint Job..
Getting our house in order so that we can all sing from the same Hymn Book is what's needed and to streamline our operation to make it Leaner and more nimble to market changes and conditions is what needs to go on.
Continental (and Now United )was is run like a Parliament. Nobody seems to be in charge. and if they Are??
You can't tell Whom it is. We need Fewer E.V.P. 's that nobody sees and more "Commanders" that EVERYBODY sees.
We run this place like Nobody has a grip on the situation and I would BET Nobody Does.
Oscar's first move should be to assess the operational Situation, Find out why there are "so many Chiefs and no Indians"
Then see if we NEED that many "Chiefs" and many of the "Indians" in Management.
We need them to ASK what we need instead of making A mountain out of a mole hill out for every decision.
And we need THAT BEFORE any lousy Paint JOB!!
We Could be world Class operators with what I'm suggesting, Or Be putting "Lipstick on a PIG" with a new Paint job

Quoting N415XJ (Reply 3): The CO livery with UA titles slapped on looks lazy, and it isn't that spectacular of a livery in the first place.

Especially not with that name.

And you're right! It was a very lazy and weak attempt. The merger between DL and NW produced a great livery, that really mixed both logos and liveries.

AA/US went the scratch made made route. AA itself was ripe for a rebrand, but now that I think of it, it does seem like they had US in mind making this livery. US had a nice stylized U.S. flag logo, and the tails of the New American just builds on it.

UA's marketing team probably just went on Photoshop and picked a font. CO's livery is classy and very executive looking, but the name ruins it all, and it needs to go.

But I agree with keep A (not The) globe design. UA has the most vast network, and a globe would be fitting still.

What the marketing dept. needs is creativity! Vision! Artists! And not those "artists" who designed IB's new "livery", I'm talking about someone who knows the airline  

But, okay, fine. Keep it recognizable. Idea?

The combined logo looks fast and lazy because it was done in a hurry. The merger between CO and UA was not a long drawn out process. If I remember correctly, UA was on the verge of announcing or executing a merger with US. In that case, the UA logo and paint scheme would probably have stayed. When CO came into the picture, the timing was so short there was no time to develop a new identity. IIRC, the press conference announcing the merger of CO and UA had the CO logo with United Airlines in CO font on it and it wasnt until some time after that the UA font was adopted.

Quoting COPolynesianPub (Reply 43):

I'm ok with the airline being United, even ok with the cheap hybrid livery. But the font kills it for me. They should've kept the Times New Roman font but actually spell out "United Airlines" on the plane. The name itself is too small for COs livery, which fit well with COs longer name, the planes just look naked now. And they should've dropped the little tail thingy of the U in the first font, it looks like a flipped over lower-case N.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 42): he merger between DL and NW produced a great livery, that really mixed both logos and liveries.

DL was actually working on that and rolled it out before the NW merger, after their bankruptcy.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 42): A itself was ripe for a rebrand

AA itself was actually coming out of BK when their new branding scheme was rolled out, before the merger.

The best recent livery that actually captured both airlines well is USs, IMO. It's got a classic but modern and professional feel to it.

Quoting StrandedAtMKG (Reply 37): The problems with the current UA branding are two-fold: 1. First, for those of us who pay attention to airlines, it looks incredibly lazy. They literally just swapped out the CO titles and replaced them with the wordmark from Rising Blue. While I think the intentions were good (combining the well-known UA brand and the well-known CO brand), it just looks very half-assed. From afar it just looks like the most creative thing they could think of to do was slap UA titles on the CO branding. 2. it's dated and confusing. A lot of companies over the years have combined their branding after a merger to maintain awareness that the companies have merged (SprintNextel comes to mind) and then subsequently dropped the killed-off brand after everyone's memories have faded a little (again, SprintNextel is now just Sprint). It's been five years, and although they're technically operating on the CO certificate now CO has been dead for about four years. Time to think about moving on. Aside from employees, a-nuts, and former OnePass members, the majority of the flying public doesn't even remember CO anymore. It's time to forge ahead with UA branding.

Yes, but the globe is now UA, UA owns it. It doesn't really matter anymore whether it was lazy or not that ship has long sailed. The tulip is fading into oblivion. People have forgotten that as well. Actually because the globe is from CO, lots of people still associate it with CO. Look at many bulletin boards online, and people still moan and groan about the old CO, and how UA is not like CO of old. It's time to forge ahead with UA branding. Well, with all due respect, that is a dumb idea. If UA starts the multiyear process of rebranding without fixing their issues, the new brand will also be tarnished. The new brand will look like an easy fix an easy and superficial way of putting lipstick on a pig. An airline of this size is not like rebranding a restaurant. A restaurant can be closed and reopened again in weeks totally reinvented. An airline, um no. It will take years. And since UA just finished a total rebranding. So moving to a new brand would not be confusing at this point? Rebranding now will not help anyone move on. People care about labor relations, operations, service, no lost luggage, etc. New branding will not make the company and its employees begin working together in harmony. I keep repeating this.

I don't believe UA really wanted US, they wanted CO all along. That was just their way of getting CO to commit. CO had a NYC area hub, did a hub in Philly look better? Doubtful. US didn't have the international route system that CO did. Even CO's Asian routes complimented UA's. What routes did US have to Asia? Oh yeah, not much. But again, revisiting this is pointless. It doesn't matter anymore. That ship has sailed, and not relevant.

[Edited 2015-09-13 23:37:37]

Quoting StrandedAtMKG (Reply 37): 1. First, for those of us who pay attention to airlines, it looks incredibly lazy. They literally just swapped out the CO titles and replaced them with the wordmark from Rising Blue. While I think the intentions were good (combining the well-known UA brand and the well-known CO brand), it just looks very half-assed. From afar it just looks like the most creative thing they could think of to do was slap UA titles on the CO branding.

The current livery is an interim solution (although will be last for years...)
The logic behind is to have all planes in the fleet to carry UA's title and the standard livery ASAP and in a less expensive way.

United needs to get back to just being United Airlines. This whole half half thing is not working and in reality there is no reason to keep anything Continental around.

Loud, but maybe something like this would finally shut all sides up: