Very classy scheme! As for using initials NWA,who cares! You have dozens of carriers like JAL,ANA, BWI,BMI,etc.
Is this the new color scheme?
- Thread starter G.55
- Start date
----------------
On 3/25/2003 6:37:44 AM ref80 wrote:
DIV>Very classy scheme! As for using initials NWA,who cares! You have dozens of carriers like JAL,ANA, BWI,BMI,etc.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 6:37:44 AM ref80 wrote:
DIV>Very classy scheme! As for using initials NWA,who cares! You have dozens of carriers like JAL,ANA, BWI,BMI,etc.
----------------
NWA - just think of the advertising possibilities, or at least the music in the commercials!
Only real change I would make to it is the tail. Have is completely red and bring back the old compass logo...however, have it bigger and off centered a tad to where it wouldn''t actually be 100% visible.
----------------
On 3/29/2003 10:41:15 AM dfw79 wrote:
Only real change I would make to it is the tail. Have is completely red and bring back the old compass logo...however, have it bigger and off centered a tad to where it wouldn''t actually be 100% visible.
----------------
On 3/29/2003 10:41:15 AM dfw79 wrote:
Only real change I would make to it is the tail. Have is completely red and bring back the old compass logo...however, have it bigger and off centered a tad to where it wouldn''t actually be 100% visible.
----------------
I agree (except I don''t like the lower case). I''m still interested in the other side of the plane. Has anyone seen a picture of the other side? Is the arc reversed so the compass point still point to the Northwest or is it Northeast?
If you don''t like the scheme, you can blast me. I''m one of the employees who voted on this about 8 mos. ago. I liked it, and since it''s saving money over the expensive bowling ball scheme, I gave it two thumbs up.
I have to admit, I didn''t like it much at first, but--like most new color schemes--it''s growing on me. A few points that have occurred to me:
First of all, the 757-300 is an awkward-looking plane in any livery, so in all fairness it''s probably not the best place to see the new colors first. It''s so long and narrow that the uninterrupted plain silver of the fuselage--in contrast to the relatively small "NWA" and compass logo--is accentuated, making it seem all the more boring. However, I can imagine that the titles will look more in proportion on, say, Northwest''s many DC-9s and A320s. I hear that it will be unveiled on other types at the three NWA hubs this week, so let''s wait and see.
Second, I was also skeptical about the emphasis on "NWA." Aside from the obvious rap jokes, it just seemed like an odd leap for an airline that--despite the parent company''s name--has never been abbreviated among the traveling public (at least not to my knowledge). However, I can think of a couple of arguments in favor of it. I have to say, here in the NY area, I have on more than one occasion heard people make the logical--yet obviously incorrect--assumption that Northwest is based or has a hub someplace like Seattle. "NWA" definitely sounds less regional. Also, and perhaps more important, I expect that a lot of people looking for Northwest''s website probably go to northwest.com, only to find a discount-ticket cybersquatter that likely fends off legal challenges solely through its tenuous links to the Pacific Northwest. All airlines are actively trying to increase sales through their own websites, and the "NWA" image is consistent with the nwa.com URL.
Finally, I think it''s pretty clear--not only from other posts here, but from common sense--that this is a cost-saving measure at a time when any possible reduction in costs is desperately needed. I am not an expert in aircraft painting, but I do know that (a) red paint is not cheap and does not wear well, and (B) having multiple colors is more expensive. Besides, planes will not be repainted until they are due for new paint anyway. With that in mind, this new color scheme seems like a tasteful way to save substantially on painting costs in the years to come.
First of all, the 757-300 is an awkward-looking plane in any livery, so in all fairness it''s probably not the best place to see the new colors first. It''s so long and narrow that the uninterrupted plain silver of the fuselage--in contrast to the relatively small "NWA" and compass logo--is accentuated, making it seem all the more boring. However, I can imagine that the titles will look more in proportion on, say, Northwest''s many DC-9s and A320s. I hear that it will be unveiled on other types at the three NWA hubs this week, so let''s wait and see.
Second, I was also skeptical about the emphasis on "NWA." Aside from the obvious rap jokes, it just seemed like an odd leap for an airline that--despite the parent company''s name--has never been abbreviated among the traveling public (at least not to my knowledge). However, I can think of a couple of arguments in favor of it. I have to say, here in the NY area, I have on more than one occasion heard people make the logical--yet obviously incorrect--assumption that Northwest is based or has a hub someplace like Seattle. "NWA" definitely sounds less regional. Also, and perhaps more important, I expect that a lot of people looking for Northwest''s website probably go to northwest.com, only to find a discount-ticket cybersquatter that likely fends off legal challenges solely through its tenuous links to the Pacific Northwest. All airlines are actively trying to increase sales through their own websites, and the "NWA" image is consistent with the nwa.com URL.
Finally, I think it''s pretty clear--not only from other posts here, but from common sense--that this is a cost-saving measure at a time when any possible reduction in costs is desperately needed. I am not an expert in aircraft painting, but I do know that (a) red paint is not cheap and does not wear well, and (B) having multiple colors is more expensive. Besides, planes will not be repainted until they are due for new paint anyway. With that in mind, this new color scheme seems like a tasteful way to save substantially on painting costs in the years to come.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 10:27:29 AM dfw79 wrote:
On the right side of the plane, the compass DOES point NorthEAST.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 10:27:29 AM dfw79 wrote:
On the right side of the plane, the compass DOES point NorthEAST.
----------------
Maybe they''ll change the name to NWA someday. Or maybe New World Airlines (or something), to get away from the regional connotation. I''m not recommending that.
Don''t get me wrong, I think the general scheme looks good. Nice and clean witha cool red tail. Some of the details are kind of disappointing. Some of that comes from the fact that the NW logo has to be one of the more clever logos ever designed.
the use of lower case i find kind of too cute by half. it''s just a pet peeve, nothing major. i also don''t like intitials that don''t stand for anything. i like real words and real proper nouns. yes, it is more modern to say fwiw or imo or imho etc etc etc. it''s an interesting point about the website dilema.
anyway, i''m sure the public will like it... it''s still very slick.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 10:27:29 AM dfw79 wrote:
On the right side of the plane, the compass DOES point NorthEAST.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 10:27:29 AM dfw79 wrote:
On the right side of the plane, the compass DOES point NorthEAST.
----------------
No, it points whichever way the plane is pointing.
But seriously, it probably would have looked odd to reverse the tail logo to make the arrow point to the upper left (or "northwest") on both sides. Remember, even the American flag is reversed (should be, anyway) on the starboard side of planes. Besides, I doubt it matters much to most of the flying public. It''s just a stylized compass--sort of like how the thing in the A^A logo looks more like a pair of scissors than an eagle, and the last Eastern logo looked more like a hockey stick than a falcon. The most important thing is that it suggest the old logo enough to be identifiable as Northwest, which I think it does. Also, keep in mind that on signs, letterhead, etc. it will always point "northwest."
Well... I agree... the aircraft is slick. Regardless, I think NWA is a mistake. Southwest seems to work just fine, as does Northwest. And, "nwa" is five syllables... does not roll of the tounge like two-syllable "northwest".
Should the new paint scheme be implemented over the course of regular maintenance checks, that is fine, and probably cost effective. However, that is a VERY long process... Southwest said it will take about 10 years to convert its fleet via this process to their new ''Canyon Blue'' scheme. Normally, airlines do not allow 10 years to convert to a new scheme. USAir repainted all their aircraft TWICE in 10 years.
Second, the new "compass" logo suggests that this is not an update of the bowling shoe - current N/W/compass logo. Airlines usually update facilities, paper, aircraft interiors, and uniforms with this type of logo change. So while the paint may be cheaper, what is the cost of completely redecorating the recently opened DTW Terminal only months after opening? Sure, all of these items need replacing periodically (paper, uniforms, etc), but most airlines do it all at once for a logo change, and that is expensive. I seem to remember reading in Bethune''s book that the first thing he did was instruct the company to paint all the airplanes in one logo ASAP at any cost... It worked for CO because it was a perception thing (they had airplanes in modified PEOPLExpress, Frontier, old and CO colors at the time). However, I don''t think now is the time to introduce this for NW. I think they should have kept this in their back pocket for a couple of years, when the economy (hopefully) picks up steam again.
And I have to agree with whomever said that associating your new logo with the current round of layoffs, service cut-backs, etc, is probably not the best idea.
In short... Nice livery, nice logo, bad timing in just about every way I can think of. Maybe they will be smart about it and have a few newer aircraft floating around with the new logo for a couple of years before changing airport signage, uniforms, letter-head, etc, and wait for better times to complete the transition.
Just my opinion.
Should the new paint scheme be implemented over the course of regular maintenance checks, that is fine, and probably cost effective. However, that is a VERY long process... Southwest said it will take about 10 years to convert its fleet via this process to their new ''Canyon Blue'' scheme. Normally, airlines do not allow 10 years to convert to a new scheme. USAir repainted all their aircraft TWICE in 10 years.
Second, the new "compass" logo suggests that this is not an update of the bowling shoe - current N/W/compass logo. Airlines usually update facilities, paper, aircraft interiors, and uniforms with this type of logo change. So while the paint may be cheaper, what is the cost of completely redecorating the recently opened DTW Terminal only months after opening? Sure, all of these items need replacing periodically (paper, uniforms, etc), but most airlines do it all at once for a logo change, and that is expensive. I seem to remember reading in Bethune''s book that the first thing he did was instruct the company to paint all the airplanes in one logo ASAP at any cost... It worked for CO because it was a perception thing (they had airplanes in modified PEOPLExpress, Frontier, old and CO colors at the time). However, I don''t think now is the time to introduce this for NW. I think they should have kept this in their back pocket for a couple of years, when the economy (hopefully) picks up steam again.
And I have to agree with whomever said that associating your new logo with the current round of layoffs, service cut-backs, etc, is probably not the best idea.
In short... Nice livery, nice logo, bad timing in just about every way I can think of. Maybe they will be smart about it and have a few newer aircraft floating around with the new logo for a couple of years before changing airport signage, uniforms, letter-head, etc, and wait for better times to complete the transition.
Just my opinion.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 12
27 PM funguy2 wrote:
Well... I agree... the aircraft is slick.
----------------
On 3/31/2003 12
27 PM funguy2 wrote: Well... I agree... the aircraft is slick.
----------------
Am I the only one around who doesn''t care for the new scheme? The old (or current) scheme may have been a bear in terms of maintenance, but it at least had some character. You could spot a Northwest Airlines flight from miles away, the livery was so distinctive. This new scheme is rather drab, IMO, and with the exception of the red tail, I''d be hard pressed from a distance to tell if it was a NW flight or a military aircraft.
Personally, I think some of the best liveries introduced in recent years were TWA''s last scheme and Estonian''s....
----------------
On 3/31/2003 1227 PM funguy2 wrote:
Well... I agree... the aircraft is slick. Regardless, I think NWA is a mistake. Southwest seems to work just fine, as does Northwest. And, "nwa" is five syllables... does not roll of the tounge like two-syllable "northwest".
----------------
On 3/31/2003 12
27 PM funguy2 wrote: Well... I agree... the aircraft is slick. Regardless, I think NWA is a mistake. Southwest seems to work just fine, as does Northwest. And, "nwa" is five syllables... does not roll of the tounge like two-syllable "northwest".
----------------
"En-dub-ya-ae". That's only four. Where y'all gettin' five from?
----------------
"En-dub-ya-ae". That's only four. Where y'all gettin' five from?
----------------
----------------
On 4/1/2003 11:37:38 AM cltvff wrote:
----------------
"En-dub-ya-ae". That''s only four. Where y''all gettin'' five from?
----------------How ''bout "En-double-U-Ae"
----------------
On 4/1/2003 11:37:38 AM cltvff wrote:
----------------
"En-dub-ya-ae". That''s only four. Where y''all gettin'' five from?
----------------
----------------
Y''all shore do talk funny. We speaks ''Merkin ''round heah!
Similar threads
