UA New livery scheme?
 

Will UA to change a new livery scheme? Because they did not have a brand new livery scheme right after CO is merger with UA. It wasn't their fault. Because it still have old livery scheme.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...g/00012191.jpg

Let the speculation begin.

It is time they do. The globe is outdated and represents poor services since the merger. It is time United moves into the 21st century with its logo and advertising. The United brand is cheap toay since the merger and the planes do not feel United. It is dated fom the 1990s. Branding means a lot in this industry and the continentalized United globe has not been representative of a great airline. Hopefully they will develop a more premium brand soon with a new scheme!

I could really get behind the new take on the old CO logo Saul Bass designed - bottom of the page

http://blog.pixellogo.com/logo-brand...w-logo-design/

Not sure if the "meatball" as I've seen it referred to carries baggage for any PMCO flyers though...

Does anyone else have a problem with that photo showing the plane 'on the ground' with no wheels down? :)

It's an OK graphic. I wonder if they are just going through different variations for a future roll out and this is just one of them. Reminds me a bit of the new American logo.

-RM

Reminds me of Pan Am.

I see the comparison - but you could also say the the current bingo cage looks like it even more :D

This mockup has been around since the merger was announced. Not official from UA, a fan mockup.

I flew out of YYT on this 737-900 last week. New on the inside, classic on outside. I would support a livery overhaul back to good days.

http://s23.postimg.cc/txzf6xsmj/IMG...729_083654.jpg

Right...

"I don't fly the airline with the globe anymore because it has poor service" or "I don't fly United anymore because of poor service"? If you want to change something "because it represents poor service", try the word "United". You can keep or modify both, but just changing livery isn't gonna change anything.

There are many, many, many things I would prefer to see UA invest in before spending a dollar on coming up with a new livery .

Who's going to start the thread "How Can I Tell If My Plane Is Painted In The New Colors?" :p;)

Yup...nothing to speculate. Just a fan boy creation.

If I start that thread, does someone have the answer? Last year in DEN and SAN, each time I saw one of the old battleship gray planes. Don't know how I could've known that from the inside. :confused:

On the livery thing, out of all the things where they had to choose between UA and CO, I still cannot believe that they dumped the tulip. I would've preferred naming the airline Continental and keeping the tulip.

Amen.

Me too, but remember United has a propensity for rebranding and revising liveries whenever the going gets tough and they want to claim newness. The airline has been through five distinct "look and feel" iterations in 40 years: the red/blue slash with blue cheatline and "Friend Ship" look, the Bass tulip plus white fuseland and orange/red cheatline, the Death Star gray-and-blue, the post-BK "UNITED" plus impressionistic tulip, and the current mess.

American stuck with one look all that time (late 1960s - 2013) without appreciable self-harm.

Changing liveries are what an airline does when it wants to look new and improved, but lacks the skill or money to fix fundamental problems.

The current UNITED + CO globe livery, which I didn't really object to at the outset (I understood the rationale for retiring the tulip - while pmUA took care of topmost elites, the tulip signified misery for the broader traveling population), now stands for such a major meltdown in the history of the airline, I think they will have to rebrand again to usher in the post-Smisek era.