colpuck

I am self-funded and I like the livery. Just flew on my first flight with the new livery, a320 SFO-SEA.

colpuck

You object to the United painted on the side of the plane?

UA-NYC

Branding is much, much, much more than just a logo

1111

They were cheaper than that, at least most of the time. I'm certain they were $129 some of the time. I seem to remember a wide variety of different prices -- they may have gone up to $199 or $219 or even $239 at some point, but definitely for a while were $129 or $179. Kept my multi-year LDR going.

And did I repay them with loyalty? No. By the time I started doing LOTS of travel for work, they really weren't an option for where I was going.

colpuck

So you object to the United brand a whole, I take it you would have preferred something else.

COFreqFlyer

Saw what appears to be the first 767-300 in new colors in DEN on 2/14.

Picture quality was sorely lacking, otherwise I'd post it.

UA-NYC

If you mean, do I object to the "new United" brand overall (aka slap a generic, not custom, font logo onto an existing, fairly dated livery), yes, I would have much preferred something else.

I like the name - just not the JV approach to branding it.

While I (and many other UA loyalists) are sad to walk away from the Tulip, I do believe we would have more accepting of an entirely fresh new look, which is what any smart, F100, leading global corporation would/should have done were they in the same position.

FriendlySkies

From our CO "brethren"...

colpuck

So you don't object to the name or the paint, but you want a new livery. What livery do you want on the plane?

You say dated, but it is the 2nd most well established livery among US carriers (AA being the most well established). Even if you think the look is dated, at least it wasn't the inconsitent livery that UA adopted. Most of the F100 CEO's will tell you as well, you don't mess with what works, and the globe has worked.

atanac

Some say simplicity is the key to beauty...but in regards to UA's new livery I think it's the case of a lazy mind.
No doubt this is an easy and inexpensive paint job, which I believe was the instructions from the bean counters.

colpuck

The CO livery is well established and the brand is respected as well as reasonably well known. I am not sure what else you want from a brand/livery.

UA-NYC

I most definitely object to the paint, think I made that clear.

Let's look at DL as a case study - 1) merge two airlines, 2) keep the name with more global brand equity, 3) come up with a new visual identity to announce you're now the leading global carrier looking towards the future. While US isn't a leading carrier, they followed the same process with HP.

UA completed the first two steps, but punted on the third. Not surprising, as the more we seem to learn about $misek, the more we learn he seems executional in nature as opposed to visionary (the latter which great CEOs are).

"Established" isn't necessarily a good thing. Southwest has a pretty "established" livery...no thanks. AA is AA - they haven't merged with anyone. If/when they tie up with US, who knows. Some may think AA looks classic - it looks long in the tooth to me.

And enough with "UA adopting inconsistent livery" - while we all know it's taken forever to re-paint, it's not like they were actively painting planes two distinct colors chemes.

colpuck

The problem with that argument is with "2) Keep the name with more brand equity." You can't argue with the fact that UA is more well known than CO. However, when you ask why is the brand more well know you come up with the real answer. UA has been in a lot of trouble recently, BK, Labor issues, service issues. All of that led UA being named the 2nd worst major airline in the US. While the name says UA, the livery invokes all of the positive brand image of CO while keeping the more well known name.

UA-NYC

...and despite all that, they kept the United name. With 50% more loyalty program members, a greater global reach (flying to 6 continents), and a richer history, it's not hard to understand why. CO has had its own BK(s) and labor issues too. Ask anyone who flies COEX frequently how positive their brand image is of CO.

$misek had an unprecedented chance, with the creation of the biggest airline in the world, to come up with a fresh approach. But he went with the qui¢k and dirty an¢wer that was roundly mocked by anyone who truly understands the impact of brand identity.

ASEFlyer

Actually, I think the current DL branding was dreamed up in 2007...and the merger was not until 2008. I am not saying that the new branding wasn't created in anticipation of the merger, but it was certainly released subsequent to bankruptcy and prior to the announcement of the merger.

Also, anecdotally, I'd say that the rate at which DL was repainting planes pre-merger and post-new brand was much faster than UA.

I personally would have loved to see something entirely new.