AA

[Ari707]

is it just me or is it that AA is the only major that hasn't redesigned its "image" at least once or twice but is also the most stable of the majors.

[T-Bird76]

What do you mean its "image" if your talking about their paint scheme then your right. AA's colors are over 30 years old and AA believes their colors are what makes them American. As for their image when it comes to advertising and marketing American has changed those campaigns many times again and again.

[Ari707]

I do mean their paint. in the same 30 years UA has had 4, DA 3 or 4, US 4+, NW 3, TW had 3 and is gone, PA had 2 and is gone.... I' sure we could all add to the list.

My point is that it must cost millions to pay a designer to come up with the new paint design. plus the cost of all the repaints.... do they really think most people pick thir flights because the plane is pretty or because the flight is cheep ?????

[T-Bird76]

Image is still a critical factor in terms of marketing your product as well as price, they go hand in hand. While we might say we could careless what our plane looks like as long as it gets you there. The common consumer views things differently especially females.

Think about a common consumer going to airline "A's" webpage and they have an old worn image but offer low fares. In the consumer's mind they'll view that airline as "cheap" and perhaps unsafe. Then take airline "B's" webpage who has a great image and also offers the same fares, in the consumers mind the image sparks a positive thought and more times then not they will be inclined to book with airline "B".

Now when we look at AA they truly have a "legacy" image which has become recognizable in the public's mind like GE, NBC, Disney, Sears and others. It doesn't matter how long AA keeps their colors the consumer recognizes American as the standard in air travel, whether that's true or not it’s the consumer perception.

[mirrodie]

BTW, Tommy, what was your college major?

Anyway, yep, AA has been pretty longstanding in its paintscheme.

Not to take away from any off Tommy's great points, I also have to suggest, just from a standpoint of practicality, they must save a ton on paint, touch up and upkeep and the added weight too.

[T-Bird76]

BTW, Tommy, what was your college major?

Industrial Psychology and my MBA will be in Organizational Management.

You're right Mario about costs AA must save millions a year in paint and upkeep of the outside of their planes. I will say lately AA's birds look real good, very shiny. You have to wonder if they're paying a bit more attention to upkeep. I remember after 9/11 for a good year or two their birds were very dull looking. I will say a freshly polished American plane in the sun looks absolutely amazing.

[i_mizrahi]

Generally speaking, airlines' liveries are like clothes fashion. In most cases it holds for a few years and then it looks out of touch and old. This is the reason most carriers change their looks approximetly every decade, eventhough it costs a lot of money and presents huge logitic problems. No carrier wants to look like the "geek" who wears outdated clothings.

For some reason - probably luck - AA's livery managed to be above fashion cahnges. There is no other example of a livery which holds so many tears without looking ridiculous. Not only that, it even gets better with time.

To some extent you can say the same thing about Continental livery.

[Tower Air]

What's PA?

[Alex T]

What's PA?
If you mean PA from the quote of Ari707, he was reffering to Pan Am.

Alex

[Iberia A340-600]

Pan Am

[Tom_Turner]

You know Tommy, you're probably right about the website example you offered.

But at the end of the day if all the American majors change their livery every ten years, all the European airlines every ten years, all the the LCCs (we shall see) etc, and all things being equal, (same aircraft, same cities, same airports etc) the consumer is going to go to these websites when purchasing their tickets and see the same new snazzy images...and all the people buying tickets will still buy tickets. Seems to me the industry put itself on a treadmill to nowhere.

Yeah, sure those that don't respond to change will do so at their own risk, but it begs the question of "frequent" livery change to begin with.

Of course livery change might be over-estimated in terms of cost of anyway - especially if its all done in the context of routine maintenance, equipment replacement etc.

But yeah, image must be updated/change in airline industry much of the time - no doubt. Sometimes immediatelyl (i.e.: Value-jet). And surely it is costly so it had ought to be neccesary.

Back to AA, they have made a couple of modifications to their livery over time..though none in recent memory. And none were significant. More like an "updating" - perhaps to keep from looking "old", but maintaining their basic scheme which did enable the "legacy" of the image. If Pan Am were still around, theirs would be considered "legacy" as well, since their change retained the colors and logo.

[Tower Air]

About the LCC'S Wn is Changing Their colors

[Alex T]

About the LCC'S Wn is Changing Their colors

Already did, they started doing this in 2001.

about 85% of the fleet is already done.

Alex

[Derf]

As Mairo says, airlines save in paint....but airlines do not care about that
like they care about the decrease in weight.....that is the real savings.

The nice thing about AA's Bare metal scheme is that they have less
weight than other aircraft which is good for a fuel standpoint. But what
ever they gain in fuel saving is usually spent on buffing out the metal for
the nice gloss. It need more upkeep than paint.

Buffing out the metal may cost money, but it is better to do that then let
dirt collect on the airframe....when that happens (DIRTY AIRCRAFT) the
airline spends more in fuel due to the drag created by the not so smooth
airframe.

Paint or metal, which is cheaper??? Nobody really knows, each side of
the fence has a different answer. Sorry, I do not pick sides on this
debate!

When it comes right down to it, I could care less if an airplane has paint,
no paint or neon under the wings with spinners on the wheels. I just want
the attention to be spent on upkeep of the airframe. In a perfect world,
all aircraft would be the ugly primer green with grease on all the
jackscrews! But that is just my 2cents. :wink:

[mirrodie]

As I said, though maybe not clearly, yep the added weight from the paint will make a difference.

having painted some rooms in my house recently, I Know carrying around 2 gallons of paint is a pain and those filled gallons are not light.

Now, multiple that weight of a gallon with the surface area of an aircraft and double it ( figure at least 2 coats needed?) . THats some serious weight.

But as you said, I dont know how much the savings truly is

[Alex T]

It makes me wonder how SWA is always going for cheap, why did we not see ametal scheme either? Perhaps they saw that it was cheaper to have paint and leave it as so, instead of metal and buffering and polishing. Could you imagine SWA in metalic?!?! *drools*

Alex

[Ari707]

I believe I saw its about 80 gal for a plane????? x 8lb. per gal? even if its just 40 gal per plane that is still 320lbs, or 2 more fare paying customers on each flight.....

[mikephotos]

Could you imagine SWA in metalic?!?! *drools*

Yeah, I can. It's called "Silver One" :) The original not the painted-Silver One.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/017884/L/

Mike

[Tower Air]

What about nwa aren't they changing colors and how much of their fleet is painted in to the new scheme

[Alex T]

Could you imagine SWA in metalic?!?! *drools*

Yeah, I can. It's called "Silver One" :) The original not the painted-Silver One.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/017884/L/

Mike

omg i forgot about the original one.