If you're asking about why they left most of the fuselage bare, it was initially an unexplained pet peeve of C.R. Smith (the president of the company for decades before and after WWII) and was later justified by Bob Crandall as a fuel-saving measure.

The rest of the design was intended to be basic enough so as to not need updating for a long time. Indeed AA is one of the few liveries out there that still looks reasonably modern after 40 years, along with Lufthansa (which shares a number of elements such as the Helvetica font).

Does having a shiny metallic finish vs other liveries actually save on fuel costs

Was looking at a boneyard photo and I saw an Eastern Airlines plane and it reminded me of AA's new livery color. AA acquired Eastern which serves as its Miami hub now FYI.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/upda...ard_19_jpg.jpg

:confused:

American's planes have been shiny polished aluminum since at least 1936 when AA introduced the DC-3. The trim colors have changed a few times since then, but the planes have always been shiny.

The new livery will likely not resemble that image of an A320. Not in the least.

Yes, paint weighs (depending on plane type) a couple hundred to several hundred pounds. Polished aluminum saves substantial amounts of fuel. In early 1999, when fuel was one-fifth of today's price and labor costs were substantially higher than today (thanks to bankruptcy-related concessions during the past decade), Boeing found that polishing was slightly more costly because of the labor costs:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...o01/index.html

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...y/fo01txt.html

Today, the labor costs are lower than they were in 1999 and fuel costs five times more than it did then, so painting is certainly more expensive now.

[QUOTE=FWAAA;19731567]:confused:



American's planes have been shiny polished aluminum since at least 1936 when AA introduced the DC-3. The trim colors have changed a few times since then, but the planes have always been shiny.



The new livery will likely not resemble that image of an A320. Not in the least.

JetBlue and Delta both paint their airplanes. American was polishing it. JetBlue had newer A320's which were more fuel efficient while in the past AA had an older fleet. But now it looks like AA's new orders will force them to paint as well.

It is interesting to see the boneyard fleets of non existant or current airlines. Planes are too old and burn too much fuel to ever be used again but it reminds you of what planes were like at the airports in the older days.

Another minus of polished metal planes is that they reflect less heat than white planes, which means that more energy is needed to cool a plane in a polished metal livery.

AA did not acquire Eastern. Crandall smelled blood in the water and started the MIA hub while Eastern was still barely alive, in order to take the market from Eastern once it shut down. AA did buy some of Eastern's route rights when Eastern liquidated, but the other assets of Eastern (such as its planes) ended up being sold to various other bidders like CO and US.

Meant the Miami hub part of the business. AA has had the 777 on the JFK to Miami route which no other carrier has had. Other carriers mostly use A32X or Boeing 737's.

In which case you are still wrong.

Please, do explain.

Google "white paint cool" and you will find a lot of material, mainly from the perspective of tacking global warming.

I recall reading that certain people at AA were concerned about this issue decades ago (when AA was still using their orange lightning bolt livery), so they conducted temperature testing on various painted fuselage samples and even tested a white livery on a piston plane (a DC-6 perhaps?), but C.R. Smith steadfastly refused to adopt a white livery for the fleet.

1) By "American" do you mean the large billboard version? That one's definitely split opinion over on the airliners.net thread...

2) I know it's in a slightly awkward position - I suppose you can't count out the possibility that AA will move it if needs be although it's unlikely. The placement I've used isn't unique though - see Thai Airways.

I love these, though I wonder how the large 'American' would look on a narrow-body. I would imagine that A320's would look a bit silly if 'American' went all the way to the wing. With the smaller 'American Airlines', the placement is just a bit too close to DLs--especially if they use the eagles on the tail.

1) Yes the large billboard version, when looking at the marketing within AA, they always use "American" as branding.

2) How about starting the ribbon in the beginning, like this: http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5694/00000316bk4.jpg

This is true if you compare white to other colors but is it correct in this case? I think it's because white reflects sunray's. So no matter how it's reflected this would give the same result.


Why would AA be forced to paint the new planes? I would find it a pity. I like the look and it really makes them "stand out of the crowd".

A distinct lack of metal on new aircraft will make it tricky to polish them in future ...

I know the details are iffy, but if the general scheme/colors are correct here, these will be some seriously BORING a/c to look at! Imagine Terminal B at DFW with gates full of planes painted like this, compared to the relatively colorful current scheme! Wouldn't all three colors (red, white AND blue) necessarily need to be part and parcel of the color scheme for an organization whose name is "American"?? Not sure I'm looking forward to this change!