It's been years since United & Continental merged. When companies merge or change corporate logos or names, it takes time to get used to it, but eventually most people get used to it.
I would say a lot of people hated the Newest Delta livery but after years I'd say most people hate it. I can go to Detroit and to me, I see/think Delta.
But... Everytime I see United Airlines.. I think Continental. When I see United adverts, I think of Continental Airlines. Everything about the United Airlines marketing says to me "Continental Airlines" then I read United and think "Oh... The airline with the Tulip"
Am I one of a few who still keeps thinking "That's Continental" when I see United Airlines marketing or do others feel the same way? I just seem to have a mental block....
Not being an American I don't have the same connection but I think the new UA livery looks great even if it's kinda hybrid.
edit...I would add I think the current Delta livery is excellent. I know it's steeped in history with the Wiglet but the current..fantastic!
I would echo the comment above... Im a big fan of the UA/CO livery and glad they took that approach with the merger... I was never really a fan of United and the Tulip liveries so glad they dropped that and kept Continentals livery...
I think the Font of UNITED pairs better with the livery than the old Continental one too....
Also not being form the US either, I can only say that I also loved the current DL colors right from the start. I really disliked the 'wavy gravy' colors before, because they looked totally uninspired, but now - DL is a modern interpretation of the outstanding widget scheme (one of the best liveries that ever suited an airplane..)
As for United, I am glad that at least one scheme survived and not both were dropped in favor of a simple white design as so many airlines are doing today. CO has brought its logo and UA its name onto the new planes, which is unique for a major merger and a great idea in my opinion..
Honestly, I regret way more that the NWA scheme is gone completely and soon the beautiful colors of US Airways will also disappear..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
B747-400 - 230ft in length
A380-800 - 240ft in length
B747-8I - 250ft in length
A380-900 - 260ft in length
Who bids more... ? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree about the current DL livery. It's one of the very few that looks excellent on every airframe it's been applied to whereas some liveries suit some aircraft and look rubbish on other types.
I agree about the current DL livery. It's one of the very few that looks excellent on every airframe it's been applied to whereas some liveries suit some aircraft and look rubbish on other types.
I do think the current Delta colors work very well on certain aircraft types, though I feel it looks a little strange on other types. I think it looks great on the CRJ-900. It looks really wonky to me on the 737-900 though. It has to do with the way they curved the dark blue belly though. They could have made it look a lot more attractive, IMO.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
100% original airliner profile artwork, painstakingly researched and detailed for accuracy
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I would echo the comment above... Im a big fan of the UA/CO livery and glad they took that approach with the merger... I was never really a fan of United and the Tulip liveries so glad they dropped that and kept Continentals livery...
I think the Font of UNITED pairs better with the livery than the old Continental one too....
I agree with this. Although I miss the Continental name and wish the merger never even happened, I'm at least glad that the CO livery survived. I also agree that the sans serif, all caps "UNITED" titles look better (in terms of font) than the CO titles did.
I think the livery looks fine. I just think "Continetal Airlines" when I see it and when I see their marketing. It's hard for me, personally, to immediately look at their marketing and logo and think "United" rather than "Continental"
I think the livery looks fine. I just think "Continetal Airlines" when I see it and when I see their marketing. It's hard for me, personally, to immediately look at their marketing and logo and think "United" rather than "Continental"
That was kinda the point: keep the United name, but Continental image and reputation. Unfortunately (and predictably), it didn't exactly work. The magic of Continental is gone. All of the pitfalls that affected pre-merger United are still present to this day. The proud culture of Continental has been watered down and is disappearing, and the customer experience is suffering. Smisek wanted to take the best of both airlines and combine them into one, but ended up doing exactly the opposite. He might go down in history as being as hated as Frank Lorenzo was.
That was kinda the point: keep the United name, but Continental image and reputation. Unfortunately (and predictably), it didn't exactly work. The magic of Continental is gone. All of the pitfalls that affected pre-merger United are still present to this day. The proud culture of Continental has been watered down and is disappearing, and the customer experience is suffering. Smisek wanted to take the best of both airlines and combine them into one, but ended up doing exactly the opposite. He might go down in history as being as hated as Frank Lorenzo was.
I don't really understand why some feel that Continental was such a great airline. I flew on them a flew times in 1999 but hardly remember so I'm not the best judge of their service.
Especially in the last few years, I feel like their reputation couldn't have been drastically different from any other major carrier but perhaps I'm wrong.
I don't really understand why some feel that Continental was such a great airline. I flew on them a flew times in 1999 but hardly remember so I'm not the best judge of their service.
Especially in the last few years, I feel like their reputation couldn't have been drastically different from any other major carrier but perhaps I'm wrong.
Gordon Bethune's book "From Worst to First" would be a good place to start. While the average passenger experience on a Continental flight might not have differed drastically from any other major U.S. carrier, during the 2000s, Continental was constantly winning all the accolades for things like best on-time performance, fewest lost bags, customer satisfaction, etc. From Wikipedia:
Continental went from being ranked last in every measurable performance category to winning more J.D. Power and Associates awards for Customer Satisfaction than any other airline in the world. BusinessWeek magazine named Bethune one of the top 25 Global Managers in 1996 and 1997. Under his leadership Continental's stock price rose from $2 to over $50 per share. Fortune named Continental among the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America for six consecutive years. In his final year piloting the airline Fortune magazine ranked Continental 2004's No. 1 Most Admired Global Airline, a title it earned again in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Perhaps most importantly, employee morale was very high during Continental's glory days in the late '90s and 2000s. But morale has gone down the drain in the post-merger era, and that's a shame.
Maybe UA-CO should have come up with an entirely new livery, but there were many other issues that were and still are pressing. It was cheaper to just adapt CO's livery and slap UA titles on it. UA-CO has so much work ahead of them, such as improving customer service, improving its hard product, particularly in international business class, and restoring profitability, which has only happened recently in the wake of low oil prices.
I really like DL's current livery, a big improvement over the previous Wavy Tails, which I never liked, and the drab so-called Ron Allen scheme that was done after the classic Widget.
Looking at the two mergers, I think all of DL's branding works, it's upbeat, but not hokey. UA's bringing back "the friendly skies" is a little exaggerated. It's not 1968 flying the DC-8 on transcons anymore.
__________________
Collector of American, Air Canada, Air France, British Airways, Pan Am and 1/200 fighter jets
The bland nature of this livery - and how it came about - was a harbinger of things to come for the merged UA/CO. These were two individual carriers with their own specific strengths and weaknesses - and the merger was supposed to build the former while eliminating the latter. Just like the livery - the merger has resulted in a smashed together carrier with more weaknesses then strengths. This was *supposed* to be the creation of a new global powerhouse carrier, and the best place to start that process would have been taking the time to come up with something new. But Jeff Smisek isn't very good at coming up with new things, and he hasn't created a damn thing, other than copying Delta on all the restrictive moves, while driving away as many of his premium flyers as he can. I get why fans of AA and DL like Smisek: he's going to continue to drive customers away to those carriers, and set them up as the leaders in the industry.
Jeff has said repeatedly that he came up with the livery with Glenn Tilton, sitting in a conference room, by themselves. Perhaps it was thrifty to do so, versus engaging an outside firm in a new branding excercise. But what it really says is '....meh'. It's Continental's 20 + livery with United's name. Delta? New branding, new image for the merger with NW. American? Pretty much set up the new livery to merge with US.
For all the talk of "Changes you will like!" - there haven't been any, other than finding new ways to monetize every perk or benefit. Did they need a cost overhaul? Sure. Did they need to move to become the Montogomery Ward of airlines? I guess that's his purview, as Mr. "Saavy" - but I think it's going to bite him in the *** later. I know it's working for the Street - for now. Oil is cheap, the economy isn't terrible - he can get away with these things. Come the next recession? I honestly think Jeff has screwed United sideways. He will be fine - he's already made millions. The people of UA/CO are the ones who will pay the bill.
This livery, with all of it's aged blandness - is the best visual representation for how badly he has screwed things up.
That was kinda the point: keep the United name, but Continental image and reputation. Unfortunately (and predictably), it didn't exactly work. The magic of Continental is gone. All of the pitfalls that affected pre-merger United are still present to this day. The proud culture of Continental has been watered down and is disappearing, and the customer experience is suffering. Smisek wanted to take the best of both airlines and combine them into one, but ended up doing exactly the opposite. He might go down in history as being as hated as Frank Lorenzo was.
Frank Lorenzo. He was about as popular as a bee hive at the company barbecue.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I absolutely hate the current United livery. To me, its the height of laziness and lack of imagination. Simply paint "United" on the side of the Continental planes, and be done with it.
The best United livery, IMO, was the classic Saul Bass. Then the "Battleship", followed by the "Blue Tulip".
I absolutely hate the current United livery. To me, its the height of laziness and lack of imagination. Simply paint "United" on the side of the Continental planes, and be done with it.
The best United livery, IMO, was the classic Saul Bass. Then the "Battleship", followed by the "Blue Tulip".
Well, did you like it as the Continental livery? It doesn't make sense to suddenly dislike it because of a perceived "lack of imagination" on the part of management. As much as us enthusiasts love to admire (or not) paint schemes and appreciate rebrandings, you've gotta admit that in the case of the CO/UA merger, keeping the Continental paint scheme was a wise decision from a purely financial standpoint. A rebranding for a company as large as post-merger United is a monumental and hugely expensive undertaking, and let's face it, the general public doesn't choose who to fly based on paint.
Well, did you like it as the Continental livery? It doesn't make sense to suddenly dislike it because of a perceived "lack of imagination" on the part of management.
I confess I never much liked the last Continental livery either. I'm not a fan of the general Eurowhite trend, I much prefer colour and style (Braniff, BA Landor, UA Battleship are three liveries that I particularly like, that immediately spring to mind).
Doing something on the cheap (which is obviously what the overriding goal was in the Continental to United rebranding scheme) always winds up looking half hearted and foolish, which is, IMO, exactly what a Continental tail with "United" painted on the fuselage looks like.
And to your point of "the flying public doesn't care", then, why not just leave the plane pure white, just as it leaves the Boeing assembly line, and save even more money? My point is, the airline's management should have some pride in their branding. Obviously, the bottom line was more important to them.
I confess I never much liked the last Continental livery either. I'm not a fan of the general Eurowhite trend, I much prefer colour and style (Braniff, BA Landor, UA Battleship are three liveries that I particularly like, that immediately spring to mind).
Doing something on the cheap (which is obviously what the overriding goal was in the Continental to United rebranding scheme) always winds up looking half hearted and foolish, which is, IMO, exactly what a Continental tail with "United" painted on the fuselage looks like.
And to your point of "the flying public doesn't care", then, why not just leave the plane pure white, just as it leaves the Boeing assembly line, and save even more money? My point is, the airline's management should have some pride in their branding. Obviously, the bottom line was more important to them.
The current UA livery is just sad.
You have an old perspective here that represents the style of the 80s and 90s when everything was colorful. Time to move on. If you talk to the younger generation, you will see a different perspective, where fluid waves like on the UA Dreamliner scheme are in and simple, plain designs. Modern designs are set from and in the Western world. Fashion, lifestyle and design always had its origin mainly in Europe and of course the US. Whatever it is, look at Apple, Audi or Airbus for example.. Just compare the complexity of their computers, car interiors or house colors from the 90s and the 2010s. You'll see that it is not narrowminded or uninspired - it is a style! I know that many prefer to hang on to their nostalgia and prefer not to be modern, but it doesn't stop the world from turning. In the 80s almost every carrier had a cheatline and a polished belly, today most carriers have white fuselages and large titles which is stylish and fresh today. My cousin just turned 20 and is a really good spotter and studies webdesign. For him the new schemes are a blessing, because they are more sharp, technical and represent a modern airline for him. The scheme he likes most is Finnair's current..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
B747-400 - 230ft in length
A380-800 - 240ft in length
B747-8I - 250ft in length
A380-900 - 260ft in length
Who bids more... ? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I know that many prefer to hang on to their nostalgia and prefer not to be modern" Bingo! You are talking about me. The polished bellies and with white crowns separated by a colorful cheatline were the bees knees. The United Airlines Mainliners, the early Aer Lingus, Lufthansa and Pan American liveries from the '60's were fine, but I do like some of the very modern liveries, such as the newest Etihad. I find the current Unicon scheme OK, sort of a natural evolution from the original Continental, and the 'UNITED' block letters are an improvement. I'm working on a 1/400 United Mainliner collection, but avoiding everything since - trying to keep this hobby from running me out of my house - mostly a space and dollar issue. Later, Doug
I have been a United fan all my life. Living here in Northern California I normally fly out of SFO which is their west coast hub. I was a big fan of the Tulip Blue and wished they never got rid of it. Me personally the Continental colors are stale looking. My opinion is if they were to use the Continental scheme then they should have at least painted the belly blue instead of leaving it tan or come up with a new scheme completely.
Thanks, Mike - I do like DA.C. Have thought of jumping ship because some of the bad kids, and pop-ups, but this still remains a great place, regardless. Later, Doug
For me personally, the best UA livery was the battleship...though the CO livery when it was for CO was their best too. Then again, new liveries don't always mean better ones. DL widget was their best, NW bowling shoe, BA Landor, AA polished. Some liveries do improve though, Thai, China Airlines and EVA spring to mind. This is of course subjective, and my own taste of course.
__________________
Regards, Andy
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I still see the livery as hybrid livery for UA. I really wish they would update their brand. In comparison to Delta and the new AA, it looks uninspired and dated. Mind you I loved the Continental livery when I was younger and it was a Continental livery. But I think had the airlines not merged, they both would have rebranded by now or would be in the process.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And to your point of "the flying public doesn't care", then, why not just leave the plane pure white, just as it leaves the Boeing assembly line, and save even more money?
You're taking my statement to an absurd extreme. Certainly, an image is important, but it's the brand behind the image that is far more important than the image (paint) itself. Or, as is often the case to the average U.S. traveler these days (and to my original point), it's who can offer the cheapest fare, sadly.
Oh, and Boeing planes don't leave the assembly line pure white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug seeley
Thanks, Mike - I do like DA.C. Have thought of jumping ship because some of the bad kids, and pop-ups, but this still remains a great place, regardless. Later, Doug
No problem, Doug! Like you, I definitely appreciate the colorful "cheatline" liveries of decades past, but they belong in the past. From a design perspective, those liveries were very indicative of the time period. While many lament that current liveries are "boring" or "uninspired", sometimes less is more, and simple is elegant. I'd wager that most here who prefer "older" liveries in general actually like them for nostalgic reasons, and not for aesthetic reasons (whether they realize it or not). And that's fine. Psychology tells us that that's how the mind works: we tend to glorify the past and remember it as better than it was, which inevitably leads us to preferring the past (or specific things from the past) over the present. That's nostalgia in a nutshell.
I initially was wasn't very inspired by the merger UA livery, but having seen it on 777s in the flesh, I have to say I'm quite fond of it now. Its one of those liveries that pictures cant quite capture the good attributes of through a screen I think
Charlotte, I find it interesting that you are discussing your apparent dislike towards United’s Continental livery with United titles while using the aborted new American logo as your avatar.
The new AA logo is disgusting and should revert back to something similar to the three previous logos that represented the true form of an eagle.
Interesting that Delta retained their logo through the years and JAL brought back their crane.
United Airlines.... Am I the only one
Your Privacy Choices
