I really don't care what they look like as long as they get me to where I want to go and safely.

I could care less what a plane looks like. I care how it will fly. Also, I care about convenience. Being that DEN is a UAL hub.....

As a child in the 70's, an airlines livery had a big influence on what airline I wanted to fly. I remember telling my mom we just HAD to fly Eastern, Ozark and United, why?, because there planes just looked so cool! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif.

If livery makes no difference as many posts suggests, then airlines shouldn't waste money to keep changing it. The cheapest one would be the smartest. Is that white with a few stickers or possibly bare metal (which requires polishing).

On the other hand, the last post suggests it does matter.

My conclusion is that complicated liveries (such as NW, which has several layers of different colors, Bangkok Air, which is very complicated with many flowers and other things) is not cost effective. The new NW, CO, Austrian, Air France look the cheapest.

The old WN livery, and to a lesser extent, the new one, look like vomit to me. As someone else already posted, if livery made no difference, airlines would not bother with it at all. As for leaving it completely bare and requiring polishing, why would this be the case if you didn't care about appearance?

Personally, I don't really like the new NW livery. It actually (imho) makes the plane look a lot older. I'm not a big fan of the "plain metal" look

I really like NWs new livery, I dont think its "all metallic" like AA, for instance. I do not enjoy AA's livery (THAT is too metallic!), I am not a big fan of Delta's old livery or Alitalia's current livery. Southwest livery is quite ugly, in my opinion.

Now, some of the greatest liveries outthere, in my opinion, are the simplest ones. I like Air France's, Swiss, Scandinavian and even Continental.

As far as planes go... I absolutely hate DC-10's, and the only redeeming feature for me when flying on those is flying WBC, but everytime I think about it I cringe as I could be flying on one of new NW A330's. Oh well. My favourite plane is Airbus 319, it truly is an awesome smaller airplane.

I do not choose airlines on the basis of the way the airplanes look, but I do go out of my way to avoid DC-10's on NW for many many reasons

About two years ago I flew Alitalia from Naples to Rome on an MD-80 painted completely as an ad for McDonalds. It felt weird to be on the plane and seemed to lower Alitalia's reputation even more.

------------------
"A Mile here is an Upgrade there!"

ATA's 737s with winglets look pretty cool!

Re. paintschemes, I agree that the old Southwest paintjob is hideous.

There's something about the Alaska design that calls my attention: the typeface and the guy on the tail. At the DC dinner last week, all conversations stopped mid-sentence as the SEA inbound AS flight landed. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

50J:

The most cost effective livery is plain metal below (not only no painting required but reduces the aircraft weight) and white on top, because that reflects the sun and reduces the load on the cabin air conditioning surprisingly significantly. A number of recent liveries have incorporated dark fuselage tops, eg dark blue, which shows they were done by a design stylist with no aeronautical engineering background.

Exception is Airbus where a corrosion-inhibiting coating requires it to be painted overall (which is why the AA fleet is usually natural metal but their A300s are painted an equivalent grey).

But life would be a boring thing if everything were always done in the most cost effective way. And just like dogs marking their territory, various management teams think one of the most apparent ways to show someone new is in charge of the business is another livery, and/or a new font for the airline name! It's when the transtion from livery 1 to livery 2 is not yet complete and livery 3 is introduced that things start to look really out of control.

Multi-coloured liveries are also more expensive because they require the aircraft to be out of service for additional days during painting to mask off the differently coloured areas. Nowadays however much of the livery can be applied by pre-printed adhesive vinyls, no paint required.

[This message has been edited by WHBM (edited 07-30-2003).]

I'm "stupid" when it comes to airline talk. I just buy my ticket and get on the plane, no hasseling, etc. Now to those of you who know all the airplane talk - tell me, "What is a livery?" I've heard of a livery stable, but in an airplane? Is it where the attendants stay?

If you mean aircraft type, then yes, I change my buying habits based on what aircraft an airline employs.

For instance, I echo the sentiments of a previous poster re: the MD-80 or its many variants. Ever since I was a kid when I saw a show that detailed some aircraft incidents with "engines at the back" planes, i've been avoiding them like the plague.

So my behaviour is modified when I select flights that do not have an MD-80 or DC-9 on them.

As far as current livery goes, Southwest is hideous, while Virgin is fresh (especially the "mine's bigger than yours" line on the A340-400).

The paint job. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif

Thanks. I thought you guys were talking about horses.

I hate flying Southwest not only because of the cattle call aspect, but the paint jobs are hard to look at.