colpuck

When you leave things to slowly change you get the image I posted above. This is bad.

I am confused, 339+144 is 483 which is greater than 360. Again I state that the CO livery is the plurality. I would like to Channa on agreeing with me that the UA brand adds negative value to the deal.

If UA had panted all of the planes in the new tulip livery I would agree with you. But like most things with UA management, they couldn't get it done. Now it is time for a change.

mkrecek

I think I confused myself too. still have to "repaint" the 339 CO planes to say UA....but that's a simple one. But my point is this possible new livery looks like the idea of a first grader....no real thought put into it.

channa

It's also possible that they're doing this to speed up the transition, not to mention smooth over the transition for legacy CO employees, and we'll see some sort of whiz-bang new livery in a couple years down the road.

uastarflyer

How quickly did CO roll out the new E+ product? What % are they up to now?

colpuck

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

How quickly did ua roll out avod on it's 744s and 772s?

SaveTheTulip

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. United has a larger fleet than CO does, and it's taking United longer to paint more planes. I'm sure being in bankruptcy also slowed down the paint process, though why United decided to start repainting in 2004 is beyond me. That United has two current liveries doesn't mean that the public can't recognize the company when presented with a blue/white plane and a blue/gray plane, as long as both planes have the United tulip logo on them. The tulip logo has been on every United plane since the 1970s. People recognize it. It's so well-known that it is part of a Sporcle quiz: http://www.sporcle.com/games/corplogos.php. Unlike the CO jet stream logo (which I very much liked and which was also designed by Saul Bass), the CO globe is highly unoriginal. The tulip, on the other hand, was designed as a more hip version of the United shield logo that predated it, right down to the colors and the slant of the shield. As for the Continental name? Without 'Airlines' attached to it, it looks uncannily similar to the Continental Tires' name.

As for what mkrecek said,

I agree: the new livery shows a total lack of originality. If post-merger United wanted to keep CO's colors and still ditch the tulip, it could have looked to the United livery of the 1960s. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._%28MSI%29.JPG Instead, the new livery looks like a bad college paper, hastily completed at the last minuted and written in Times New Roman.

N965VJ

Not uncommon at all, but I'm growing tired of "retro" things, although an occasional retrojet is cool.

UnitedConnection

E+ > AVOD every day of the week. 'nuff said.

colpuck

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Uaconnection, are you head of customer experience at UA? If not, then it is just an opinion. UA managment can't get anything done, whether it be painting planes or updating them.

Savethetulip, again I ask what tulip? UA has had 6 years to get the planes painted and it is still not done. Co did it in 90 days. As you pointed 40% of the fleet looks terrible. You concided the negative value the brand has. The CO livery represents a change in the ineffective and down right lazy leadership UA corporate has provided for the last 10 years.

I have yet to hear a downside to using the CO livery other than most people here like it for sentemental reasons. Well guess what, the brick does not love us. The co livery will increase shareholder value and that is the begining and end of this conversation.

UAL awesome

UA will repaint the plane when it is due for a paintjob, this saves money since the plane is needed for revenue service. And CO did NOT paint all their planes in 90 days. That is such bull corn. And UA management apparently did get something done, considering UA is out performing your precious CO financially. Whoops.

And if the world's largest airline is going to adopt an unrecognized, ancient brand for their identity, then they're smoking some serious reefer up in HQ. And if the new airline is going to have to repaint the legacy CO planes. If they think just slapping over "United" over "Continental" is the answer, they're so wrong. Have you seen the Star Alliance logo on CO planes? Well imagine how shoddy it's going to look when they paint over the CO titles.

DogHead

It can't be beginning with over 700 posts and you'll see no end to it now.
Regarding downside of CO livery? It's simply boring and unimaginative rubbish. Doesn't matter if it's clean painted or peeling away, design itself is rubbish. To slap a beach ball on a plane? It may appeal to bucket and spade crowd flying to the beaches for once a year holiday. Apart form that is boring, boring, boring and forgettable. Whoever paid for that design should be sued for wasting company money. Now money saving argument is being used to sell this livery as a face of new United, yet nobody raised a single objection to Mr Smisek's TWO offices at two ends of the country.

channa

I disagree with this. UA has been updating their planes like crazy over the past year or two. Leather seats, LCD screens, replacing IFE components, etc. The cabin refresh has been going pretty quick. This is in addition to the new C/F rollout.

True, they did not do the exteriors and kept them on regular schedule. The only ones they accelerated were the legacy Ted aircraft as they reconfigured them.

The RCCs have been getting refurbished as well. So I think the notion that UA management can't get anything done is incorrect. We may not agree with the repainting schedule, but that doesn't mean they can't get something done. If they wanted to do it, I'm sure they could.

HeathrowGuy

If you give some critical thought to United's historical reputation, Jeff Smisek will likely prove to be the most "pro-United" CEO since the days of Steve Wolf (the last time United was THE clear industry leader, and not merely another market competitor). Greenwald, Goodwin, Creighton, and Tilton all had some strengths, but none of them mastered "the art" of United Airlines - namely, to not be merely the biggest, but also to be the best in product, best in fleet, and best in network of any airline on Earth. My initial sense is that Jeff Smisek "gets it" - he understands that there are many things CO does well, and that will serve the merged airline well, but at the same time, he will work to revive "the art" of United Airlines, which will lead to better travels for all of us.

colpuck

Wow, UA had 1q of profitability. I'm impressed, I really am considering the previous 10 years. Looking at UA as a whole they should be blowing people away. But no they spend billions in Ch. 11 and emerge behind US Air in customer service. No one has contested me on the fact that UA brings negative value to the table.

Point two, I don't think UA people get talk about shoddy looking planes, please see the previous picture I posted.


This comming from a company that paid several million dollars for livery only 60% of their planes use. The person that made that decision needs to be fired for missusing company funds.

Oh yes, being in the back of a 763 with bins from 1984 and looped video is amazing. . (Yes, I know its the same on CO 762s and 764s which is why I try to fly 772s with AVOD)

Too bad on the RCCs where I have to pay for small things like booze and internet, again .

channa

I certainly hope you are right.

I am somewhat concerned that the CO culture breeds a sense of arrogance among employees, and it shows in day-to-day items. Hopefully Smisek can do something to humble his own, while welcoming in the UA folks, and truly pull in the strengths of both groups.

I was very surprised to see in the CO FAQ to employees the following:

United also brings many strengths to the new airline, including a globally recognized name, one of the finest networks in the world, and talented co-workers. United's employees have done a great job with the carrier's on-time performance, which over the last year or so has been not only better than ours, but the best among network carriers. United has the highest unit revenue (RASM) in the industry -- even better than Continental's.

This may very well be the first time in recent memory that someone from CO management has acknowledged that they're not the best in something. It was very refreshing to see. And much different from the "Rah! Rah! We're the best!" rhetoric we typically see out of CO.

Internet is free for RCC and PC members, and the food is actually better at the RCC than in the CO club. I have never seen fresh vegetables in a CO club.

Again, the notion that CO does everything better is absurd. They have their strengths, but they are by no means the best.

I know many would rather trade AVOD for extra legroom. I know I would.