Well, this has been interesting. I'm glad that I was able to pose a topic which generated so many interesting responses.

I admit that I tend to be a bit traditional and change resistant, but the new livery really does nothing for me. I did like the world livery tails. Globaliser, why do you feel that the image so important? It doesn't really influence the passenger's purchasing decision, IMO.

There are other considerations, too. I was once told that a fully painted 747 carries around 600 pounds of paint. (Anyone in the know able to confirm this?) That costs a lot of fuel to fly around, particularly on the longer haul routes, like HKG↔JFK, not to mention the maintenance costs of keeping it looking half decent. Plus, every time you change liveries, you have to repaint all the aircraft? What does it cost to paint a 747? Personally, for example, I never understood why UA abandoned the gray/blue theme for the current one. The gray/blue (in both of the incarnations) was relatively short lived, and must have cost them a small fortune for all of the repainting involved in the two changes. I thought that it was visually attractive, dignified, and generated a strong corporate identity, -- it was unmistakably UA.

At the other extreme, you have AA. Same livery for decades, doesn't seem at all outdated to me. Little to no paint (they use decals), reducing weight, maintenance (just replace the decals).

Anyway, thank you all for the responses. They've been most enjoyable to read.