|
Keep the CO livery and just swap out the CO name and add UA's.
I find our paint job and logo must cleaner and nicer that UA's. Not to be nasty but what is the official livery for UA? I see atleast two types of paint jobs daily. |
Originally Posted by sfogate
(Post 13884072)
Keep the CO livery and just swap out the CO name and add UA's.
I find our paint job and logo must cleaner and nicer that UA's. Not to be nasty but what is the official livery for UA? I see atleast two types of paint jobs daily. |
Originally Posted by sfogate
(Post 13884072)
Keep the CO livery and just swap out the CO name and add UA's.
I find our paint job and logo must cleaner and nicer that UA's. Not to be nasty but what is the official livery for UA? I see atleast two types of paint jobs daily. http://www.fsplanet.com/images2/jp_ifdg757_twa_aa2.jpg In many cases, the super el cheapo TWA logos started peeling off in a matter of days. |
|
Well, it's the least of anybody's worries, but . . . .
I think CO's current livery is one of the all-time best in the industry. UA's is the typical ugly, inelegant mish-mash. It would be brilliant to use CO's and just change the name. But I'll be very surprised if that happens. |
Originally Posted by transportbiz
(Post 13883530)
Airlines paint planes all at the same rate of renewal. It has to do with the inspection process. Every _____ years the plane must be stripped to it's bare metal, inspected and is then repainted. Or at least this is what a seat mate who sells paint stripper to the airlines (seriously that was his job) told me. With a merger I personally think it's wasteful (environmentally, and bottom line cost) to rush this before it's needed as part of the inspection process. DL was very eager to paint the NWA 747's in its livery (though the inspection may have been do soon anyways).
|
Whatever the scheme, I suspect Jeff's mentorship by Bethune taught him to get your planes painted in one unpeeling scheme on the double. He knows it sends a message.
|
Just like DL did for NW planes and HP did for, well, their own planes, UA will repaint the CO planes at a faster interval than normal...so it does seem indeed the battleship grey livery will be here for quite a bit longer, as the priority will be the CO planes.
|
Having lived through my own corporate mergers/acquisitions (technology, not airline), and given the history of talks between these two companies, you can be sure that a number of people have spent a LOT of hours on this topic inside the two companies....debating, reviewing with management, probably some market research, certainly cost analysis, etc.
As a long-time OnePass Elite (15+ years), I have thought of CO's livery as one of the better ones, and UA's new one as rather bland. UA's tail in particular is a waste of what *should* be a great billboard (as a brand-builder). Part of me wonders if UA put their current tail livery in place as a temporary solution - if they spent more than a dime on its design then they certainly wasted their money - but another part of me wonders if they are that clever. It will be interesting to see how they handle this. |
Originally Posted by UAL awesome
(Post 13886157)
Just like DL did for NW planes and HP did for, well, their own planes, UA will repaint the CO planes at a faster interval than normal...so it does seem indeed the battleship grey livery will be here for quite a bit longer, as the priority will be the CO planes.
The management team that took over that airline in 1994 inherited two Continental legacy schemes -- not because of a merger, but because of a UA like incompetence at phasing the new scheme in a timely manner. Gordon Bethune, the CEO who took over then (and hired Smisek) made it a point to get all of the planes painted to one scheme within months, regardless of other priorities. From a financial perspective it appears irrational, but I suspect Smisek will take a similar approach to the dated grey scheme once the operations combine. That scheme has about as many years left on it as the Continental scheme. In other words, they'll have the same priority to get one one look -- whatever that look is. |
The existing CO livery is very 90's and outdated. UA's livery OTOH is modern and attractive. That it has taken UA 6+ years to paint 75% of their fleet in the new livery is a different matter. :D
|
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
(Post 13886372)
The existing CO livery is very 90's and outdated. UA's livery OTOH is modern and attractive. That it has taken UA 6+ years to paint 75% of their fleet in the new livery is a different matter. :D
AA, on the other hand, needs a new makeover. I think their logo is from the 60's. |
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
(Post 13886372)
The existing CO livery is very 90's and outdated. UA's livery OTOH is modern and attractive. That it has taken UA 6+ years to paint 75% of their fleet in the new livery is a different matter. :D
I think both UA and CO have perfectly acceptable liveries. They are noth pretty much in a similar color register. If you want ugly, how about this Kulula plane from South Africa: http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...a2-400x290.jpg photo courtesy or airliners.net |
Originally Posted by sfogate
(Post 13886407)
I don't think CO's livery is outdated at all
BTW, you'll soon figure out what the current UA livery is :D |
I wonder how long the CO Retro Jet will be around.
Originally Posted by UAL awesome
(Post 13886157)
so it does seem indeed the battleship grey livery will be here for quite a bit longer
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:52 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.