Some of you people really make me laugh at times. The chant of looks looks looks is all anyone seems to think about here. What is this? Episode 10 of QE for the lost guy? 🙁
Sure looks ..especially professionally projected looks has its place...no doubt about it...but from a business standpoint you need to examine the facts that will increase costs.
(1) Durability of the paint scheme (Longevity)....anything short of this will add to our costs , as the current paint scheme is showing time after time after time.
(2) Increased weight and drag of the fluffy paint scheme....do we need something else to increase the cost of fuel?...and then the cost of a given seat mile?
(3) With 1/3rd of the new operation flying in or out of PHX and LAS in the future...do we need to add the cost of cooling an airframe/cabin of a "Heat Soaked" aircraft. A Blue , nearly black crown only compounds this issue...but few if any of you can get past the fluff to even begin to understand function and its related costs to an already cash strapped operation
(4) How will the paint scheme look 6 months down the road? The current scheme with the sole exception of the factory born Airbus paint jobs has been an economic and cosmetic disaster...the temp fixes during checks are costly , time consuming and then they look like tee-total hell due to the patch-work nature of the touch-ups being done. This is not the fault of Maintenance...it is due to limited time and the nature of the beast with the EPA...and the poor surface prep being done by the third party vendors that re-painted our planes in the begining.
(5) As I have given credit to how the Airbus paint has weathered since they were built...they too are starting to peel and oxidize...and unless they are done properly when the time comes...they will look like hell , just as the Boeings do within months..not years. Thankfully...the aftermarket paint jobs fall off before the oxidation process hits full stride in most cases.