Spy shots of JetBlue's new livery

[PhilDernerJr]

:arrow: Bigger Titles and New Tail as JetBlue Unleashes New Livery

Mario, I must say I do agree with you somewhat. I might not actually call this a "new" livery, but I do think it's a significant upgrade. I am actually surprised that their original livery had such small titles....it should have been like this the whole time.

The new tail is much more fresh and lively than all of the previous, and even if this isn't incredibly exciting or different, it's still something new to get photos of!

Also keep in mind that from a business perspective, most of the days of elaborate fleet-wide paint scheme or over. These folks need to save money to survive, and a white body is the way to go unfortunately. No one should get their hope sup in expecting anything else. I'm "less disappointed" because this is along the lines of what I expected anyway.

[T-Bird76]

These folks need to save money to survive, and a white body is the way to go unfortunately. No one should get their hope sup in expecting anything else. I'm "less disappointed" because this is along the lines of what I expected anyway.

Besides being the least expensive paint to use, white also goes along way while in service to save the airline money in terms of fuel. White reflects heat and therefore while a plane is on the ground it stays cooler requiring the A/C to work less meaning less fuel consumption.

[Mayi757]

lol My post is ridiculous long, but:

Not criticizing JetBlue's blah livery and CRAP update (which IMO now that I see the full thing it looks the same, or maybe worse) just because it's crap. Obviously I could simply care less, say if I was a business traveler who only sees the interior. Some of us bring out a camera in the hopes of capturing an interesting, and different aircraft subject. Because what painter or photographer goes to the same site only to capture the same plain scene over and over?

If we want to get technical about how sun rays relate to A/C consumption to justify a visually-weak brand, and that all US major carriers now sport the same basic livery, we can also say a marketing degree in a top business school right now doesn't teach a person to develop taste or emphasizes how to present a product visually.

Marketing folks nowadays tend to lack knowhow in the aesthetics departments because the myspace/hip hop generation (I'm borderline there) has been trained in a way that marketing is strictly business and take the 'art” part of the equation out -especially here in the US). Back in the days when people studied commercial design these two things were related, not anymore. These days a good number of airline paintschemes, logos, etc are done by someone in an ad agency with photoshop skills and not by real designers and artists (how it used to be).

Examples of world airlines who have gone this more “hip” route with a resulting (and not surprisingly) poor and sometimes awful result, in addition to paying big $$$ for the change: Pakistan Intl. Airlines, El Al Israel airlines, TACA, Air Mauritius (I swear the tail is a breath mint) among others.

Let's take the example of El Salvador's Grupo TACA:

1997: trash their strong visual brand and go to a Miami-based agency for a new paintscheme. Result: CRAP.
2008: after 10 years they AGAIN outsource a new identity and go to a New York?-based ad agency. Result: CRAP again.

There are many, many good special schemes out there with the a/c efficient white top, here's a new one:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Ea ... 1593992/M/

The myth some have that all airlines are going white-dark blue tail and sacrifice elegance to cut costs isn't really an issue apparently to many profitable airlines especially in Asia, where having colorful paintschemes is the norm. Check out the colors of Air Asia, Bangkok Air, and others.

Southwest has a huge fleet and they've always made money, using a paintscheme with several colors plus all the complicated special themed planes. If the idea of cutting costs to remain competitive is a cheap visual identity, then you're in the wrong business.


How can jetBlue pull off a cheap (only to save on A/C lol in order to survive) 10th anniversary jet or new scheme?

-Less tedious of way, cheaper and faster than applying all these different tails that do NOTHING for your brand is a large 10 anniv. sticker with some lines along the fuselage that evoke celebration. Employees and even the public will see this as an airline that's proud of itself and its employees, especially in an event like yesterday's.
-Dark blue seats don't mean this type of look is a good fit for the fuselage outside. Get a nicer, brighter blue and at least that way you don't seem like you're a cheap affiliate of DL, US, or CO.
-A new livery? Your name is Blue. Use light blue instead of white fuselage, titles of “jet” in white/silver, “Blue” in deeper blue. The bottom could be dark gray instead of the same 'ol tired dark blue. The possibilities are endless and yes, many even cheaper.

[T-Bird76]

lol My post is ridiculous long, but:

Yes your post is long and ridiculous. If you do some research you'll easily see that airlines since the inception of the jetliner have had plain white planes with generally a straight cheatline their name a logo on the tail, and nothing more. Why we think the airlines of the past had these grandiose schemes is beyond me, they simply did not.

Take a look at the following airlines from the 60s, 70s, and 80s... British, Air France, Alitalia, American, Continental, United, Pan Am, TWA, Japan Air, and Air Canada just as a few examples. None of these carriers had elaborate paint schemes, all were very simple like we see today. In fact carries like UA and AC’s colors are far more elaborate today than in the past. Simply because airlines like Braniff had multi color planes with powerful marketing we seem to think the entire past was full of similar trends. The fact is today's schemes aren't all to far off from the past and the special schemes of today are far more elaborate in their design and application then the airlines of the past.

[USAF Pilot 07]

My 2 cents...

Who cares what the aircraft is painted it? It gets me from point A to point B and I never see the outside unless I'm waiting at the gate for it or trying to spot it airborne...

If it was a super special paint scheme (like one of a kind or very detailed), I think it'd be something to get excited about, but if they are painting all of their airplanes in the new livery, eventually it will be commonplace and no one will care either way. It's all just marketing anyway - from getting their employees to feel like the company has undergone change and is starting anew, and catching a frequent traveler's eye for the next few weeks...

[bluejuice]

Personally I like the scheme. It emphasizes our "Brand" and gives us a new fresh look. And just to let you know this is replacing our plaid tail. According to the number crunchers it was not cost effective to re-paint and the additional colors caused unnecessary weight. Also this is NOT our 10th anniv tail. We are having an internal contest and it will be on one plane just like our 100TH tail. We will not spread it through the entire fleet.

[Mayi757]

Tbird, do you need a hug?

Although your response in the 'Air India 747' thread was anything but genius it's not like it made me
waste my time insulting someone who wasn't even talking to me in the first place.

If a 12 year old thinks all the liveries of the past looked like jetBlue and twin jets are God's gift to aviation it
doesn't bother me one bit, seriously. Good for you!

[Mayi757]

Personally I like the scheme. It emphasizes our "Brand" and gives us a new fresh look. And just to let you know this is replacing our plaid tail. According to the number crunchers it was not cost effective to re-paint and the additional colors caused unnecessary weight. Also this is NOT our 10th anniv tail. We are having an internal contest and it will be on one plane just like our 100TH tail. We will not spread it through the entire fleet.

The part about the number crunchers is funny, considering JetWhite barely has any colors as it is, and very little "blue" for a blue airline. At first glance the 'fresh new look' looks the same as their other jets; the least exciting and most plain plane in the terminal. Except that now the larger titles don't really look right on top of the windows.

By the way, for having the most bare white fuselage in the whole aviation industry, it's kind of a poor effort that we haven't seen any real special promotions or logojets in 10 years. And yes, I mean something more noticeable and eye-catching than Yahoo Blackberry and the soccer promotion.

[wunaladreamin]

[Mayi757]

[Tom_Turner]

Well, for my 2 cents, I'll agree airliners of the past were not in any way spectacular for the most part; there's probably more color out there now.

In fact, many of the "classics" could rightly be termed "dull" if I were critique them harshly.

But for aesthetics, I will agree agree with Mario - many of the brands were pretty powerful - Pan Am (the Globe), National (Sun King), Japan Air Lines (whatever kind of bird that was), and everyone going to a cheat wave now, I would think, loses some value (since so many are doing it). Its the airlines' money, so I will have to yield to their expertise..its their business after all, but for me, Air France, jetBlue, Delta etc... their logos, schemes etc... what are they? I happen to know them, but if I didn't - perhaps its a design for the napkins at The Four Seasons, a brand on a package of batteries, or a Shower Curtain print at the 99 cents store? Who knows... most look meaningless.

For the more modern era, I am probably more partial to the two tone/color schemes.. Northwest bowling shoe, Continental etc... And, yeah, I think British Airways should take one step back, (or two steps, if we count the World Tails) and get back to their best livery.

Tom

[Mayi757]

Tom Turner, I know what you mean. Most of the majors didn't have spectacular paintschemes, not even close. However, they were well-designed schemes that made aircraft look elegant. Still there were some main airlines that were absolutely gorgeous, some of which served JFK (think of Iraqi and Ecuatoriana). But nowadays, the only region where airlines are more colorful than before is Asia. South America and Africa used to have some pretty colorful aircraft, where nowadays they're mostly just white with painted tails.

I did a post on a.net a few years ago with all (they were many) Latin Paintschemes that had gone "eurowhite". Posted new and old liveries side by side. The difference was night and day. Unfortunately for those of us who enjoy a variety and colors other than white/blue, about 90% of carriers in Latin America now are white with a painted tail, usually blue -jetBlue would fit right in-. It has really made the photography scene in Miami dull in comparison to how it used to be.

However as far as "special" paintschemes is concerned, Europe now has countless logojets, many with crazy colors. You didn't see this 20 years ago. Situation is reversed in the USA where in recent times only Western Pacific, Southwest and America West/USAirways have done this to their planes.

Would be interesting to know how much ad revenue Western Pacific got out of those.

...and yes agree BA's best were Landor's and World tails. There was a time when Landor used to have great designers and real creativity in branding.