Originally Posted by
RobotDoctor
Has anyone thought that since all Continental aircraft is already painted and many UA planes are not painted (still the old tired blue and grey colors) that this is more cost economical to paint the UA planes in the CO format with United script? It takes less paint to paint 1/2 the planes (more of less) than all the planes and the other half just needs a small amount of paint (to paint over Continental to United). If people want UA to survive and be able to offer the benefits we have come to expect then maybe this is a good thing. Personally I have no problem with the new scheme and do not mind the Continental Globe in the tail fin. I don't care for the United script though. Maybe letter outlines would help or italic print.
This thought absolutely crossed my mind. Another thought I had: is it cheaper in terms of labor to paint the fuselage than the tail? Like you mention, all the CO planes are "done" and the UA ones are the ones that need paint. Personally I prefer the newest UA iteration/blue fade tulip and white to this one- however having said that...I care more about E+, UDU, SWU, maintenance records, MP+, etc than I do about the logo/look.
3 years ago when I started flying a ton for business, I didn't choose my airline on looks. I chose United b/c it has the best FF program, the most perks, and the best route network to fit my needs, and they were cheaper than SQ. Hopefully all of that stays true or I'll have to look to the dAArkside! Yikes. Please, no. I don't think anyone over there is hAApy.
