BearX220

Yup, big mistake. If the employees vote in the old tail the airplanes will be a visual mess -- two eagles, two capital "A" fonts. Branding is not a democratic process. A lot of employees fancy themselves branding experts but make a big hash of things given the chance. Believe me.

The way I remember it, AA had big plans for a transitional livery for TW aircraft that would have celebrated TWA heritage and kept the brand visible for awhile, but they were scotched by 9/11 when all the airlines' business went into free fall. Suddenly there were no funds for non-essentials.

coutura

The whole AA tail discussion is getting pretty OT, but here's the mockup from their facebook:



I was expecting them to at least try to blend in the AA logo into the new scheme, but they really just copied and pasted it (or maybe this was some 2-bit mockup by the FB team). I must say of the two choices, I'd definitely go with the flag, but I can see the employees choosing the old logo for nostalgia.

Also, their comments section on FB is exploding with alternative liveries:
http://www.facebook.com/AmericanAirl...783712416078:0

As far as United, I think they need to stick with their current livery until things are smoothed out and then they can start really re-branding themselves. Although they could take the approach they did with "Flyer Friendly" and hope that they can conform to a new image they create for themselves, but changing the livery and logos right now would be a huge cost (especially since they really just spent a ton of money getting rid of all the Continental branding and United tulips), and we all know that United isn't looking to incur more costs (probably about an average of $30k per plane in the fleet).

TWA Fan 1

Yes, there was a transitional livery, but it was not so much to celebrate TWA, but because "TWA Airlines LLC" was the subsidiary of American Airlines that replaced TWA.

Those TWA decals were removed pretty quickly and replaced with AA signage.

In the wake of the sCO crews so actively undermining the unity and brand of the new UA I could understand why, though, AA would push to have their new airline simply be branded as AA.

BearX220

Ah yes -- and remember how DL made Northwest disappear very rapidly, not only for the branding clarity advantage but to minimize the b#lls#it that accompanied US/HP, with America West employees still working, years later, for an airline that no longer existed, and which we still see today from Proud Continental Crews telling you how many OnePass miles you'll earn on today's flight. That crap is as bad for the company as a bad livery.

Sulley

You rarely hear it these days -- and to this day, many PMNW crews refer to Delta as HeeHaw

kale73

Yes. A plane painted in that manner is definitely unsafe. Every one of them will probably crash or arrive at the wrong airport.

(WGAS?)

uastarflyer

AA should take the tulip and run with it. Jeffrey will sell it for a few TODs.

FiveMileFinal

Touching on the AA livery for a moment, someone posted a version when the new eagle comprising the tail that was absolutely and incredibly fresh. I like the new tail, but would happily see this version.

With United, who cares? Didn't Jeff say he designed the current mess?

deltaflyer08

I think the mock up livery kinda looks like AA's new livery.

sbm12

Indeed, he doesn't. And for good reason.

It doesn't matter.

ETA: I was at an AA event at JFK this afternoon for work. I spoke with a dozen or more senior FAs and back-office employees. They all said they were voting for the flag tail.

KenInEscazu

I wonder if asking M+ partner Copa to rebrand was part of the decision. Copa is no small airline, and their livery is difficult to distinguish from the old CO/new UA livery from a distance.

Am I the only one who thinks that although it has been around for a while, the current livery still looks clean and modern? My opinion of the airline these days could certainly use a boost, but I do think their aircraft are attractive.

Finally... Am I actually taking part in such a totally useless exchange of opinion? I've got work to do.

halls120

If an airline's livery "doesn't matter," why does every airline have one?

TWA Fan 1

This might be a decision based on esthetics, but I think a big part of it is that it is a symbol of change.

Employees of AA have been the principal catalyst to push toward the "new American" and, of course, the merger with US.

It's not just that they wanted to form a humongous airline, it's that they saw it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally scuttle AA's highly dysfunctional labor/management relationship, which has been bitter and acrimonious nearly since the carrier's founding.

Doug Parker is one of those exceedingly rare airline CEO's who seems capable of making money while creating a sincerely cooperative atmosphere with labor.

That has never existed at AA.

Baze

So the pilots can find their plane on the tarmac?

joshwex90

Did he? I searched that and the only real result I was able to find was a Wikipedia article on the "History of United Airlines." Its source for this comment, which was along the lines of, "much criticism was directly at Jeff Smisek who flatly admitted that he, along with Glen Tilton, designed the new livery on their own, with no inside or outside help whatsoever." Its source is a NY Times article that doesn't mention that whatsoever.

Not denying he designed it - maybe he did. But can someone point me to a source that he made that claim?