New colors?

funguy,

Yes, I know that experimental color scheme was back in 1994. I don't think that's exactly what they'd end up with, but I just posted it as an example of how they could redesign their livery without changing the logo, the font, etc.--and probably save painting costs, too.


acmech,

Take a deep breath and put away that reamer set for now...this may be nothing more than a rumor. And even if it's not, it might not be anything worth getting upset over. Airlines may be laying people off left and right, but that doesn't mean they let the paint on their planes fade and peel off. As was mentioned above, any new livery would likely be less costly to apply than the current one. So what difference does it make what colors they use, if the planes were going to be painted anyway? Sure, it would be a different story if they announced an accelerated repainting schedule, or a whole new logo, or if they were coating planes in gold leaf, but no one has suggested anything of the sort.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 5:44:23 PM NWAfr8dog wrote:

I'd be PISSED if my buddies are on the street while management spends their well-advertised bonuses deciding how many millions to spend repainting the jets!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Initially I had a hard time accepting this to, but from what I understand NW has some 80+ aircraft that need repainting this year, and the new colors are expected to be less expensive to both apply and maintain. You can bet NW did a detailed analysis of the costs involved with designing the new scheme vs. the savings mentioned above.
 
Right - since aircraft are generally stripped and repainted with a D check anyway, changing the paint scheme isn't necessarily worth complaining about - unless they paid someone millions to design a new scheme.

Regardless, I personally thing the current scheme is one of the better-looking liveries out there. Maybe that's partially because it is one of the very few schemes left that doesn't use white over 90% of the aircraft.....
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/5/2003 10:09:42 PM AAG2000 wrote:

funguy,

Yes, I know that experimental color scheme was back in 1994. I don't think that's exactly what they'd end up with, but I just posted it as an example of how they could redesign their livery without changing the logo, the font, etc.--and probably save painting costs, too.


acmech,

Take a deep breath and put away that reamer set for now...this may be nothing more than a rumor. And even if it's not, it might not be anything worth getting upset over. Airlines may be laying people off left and right, but that doesn't mean they let the paint on their planes fade and peel off. As was mentioned above, any new livery would likely be less costly to apply than the current one. So what difference does it make what colors they use, if the planes were going to be painted anyway? Sure, it would be a different story if they announced an accelerated repainting schedule, or a whole new logo, or if they were coating planes in gold leaf, but no one has suggested anything of the sort.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you brain dead man? Passengers do not care about peeling paint. What they care about is safe, reliable service from the airline of their choice. They want more then a bag of peanuts and a cup of coke or pepsi with an ice cube in it. They want this for a good price or they will simply drive to their destinations. They do not want to pay extra fees because their luggage is 1 pound over the weight restrictions, or pay extra to change their ticket because they missed a flight and have to take another do to unusual situations such as snow storms and they can't even get to the airport. Passengers are tired of being shafted by the airlines with such change fees. Former employees are tired of being shafted at ever turn they make when they hear about wasted money on new paint jobs. The laid off airlines folks are tired of not being able to get past the brain dead chicks in human resources.

So you see, this goes much deeper then a new paint job, rumor or not.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/5/2003 10:09:42 PM AAG2000 wrote:

funguy,

Yes, I know that experimental color scheme was back in 1994. I don't think that's exactly what they'd end up with, but I just posted it as an example of how they could redesign their livery without changing the logo, the font, etc.--and probably save painting costs, too.

----------------
[/blockquote]

AAG: Point taken... I understand that it is an example. But the point of this thread is that NWA is actively experimenting with color scheme's and I would just point out that something from 1994 does not necessarily prove that it is being actively considered.

As for the DC-9-50's still being operated... You are right! I assumed that the 9 fleet had been consolidated to just the -30 series, but I see on nwa.com that they still operate -10s, -30s, -40s, and -50's. I guess Republic lives on!
Avros... but now I am drifing dangerously towards thread creep.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/6/2003 2:11:01 PM acmech wrote:

Are you brain dead man? Passengers do not care about peeling paint.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Tell that to management...at any airline. You're arguing something that goes way beyond the scope of what is being discussed on this thread. The fact is, airlines DO repaint planes on a regular basis, and all we are talking about is what colors Northwest will paint theirs next time they go into the paint hangar.

Whether planes should be repainted at all is an entirely different topic. But I can tell you for sure that the average passenger does NOT feel safe getting on a shabby-looking plane.
 
acmech...
As one of your (NW) frequent flyers, allow me to enlighten you....THE HE** I DON"T CARE ABOUT PEELING PAINT AND SHABBY LOOKING PLANES!!!
I, like all other non industry flyers, have no other way to judge an airline other than the "appearance" of there fleet and the attitudes of their people. If I see a grungy, dirty wreck of a plane outside the terminal window....I immediately start to wonder...what else are they to cheap to do to that plane. I can't "pop the hood" to check the engines. I can't pull the wall coverings off to see how corroded the skin and wiring is. The only thing that John Q Pax has to go by is "does it look like they take care of their planes". The late, and sometimes great, Eastern toward the end of the first version, had some REAAALLLYY shakey looking crates. I found myself shying away from them because I felt that if they didn't even bother to give the appearance of a well maintained airline, what was NOT visible to the naked eye is probably even in worse shape. I have sat in gates and heard other passengers comment about the decrepit condition of an airlines planes and wonder out loud about "that rust bucket" they were about to fly on. I have witnessed passengers refuse to fly on airplanes that didn't look to be in too good a shape from the windows of terminals. So YES....a paint job matters very much.

As for a possible new NW paint job....If it is cheaper to apply and better looking than the ugly bowling shoes they currently have, I say GO FOR IT!!
The red tails are fine. The logo is nice. Just get rid of that dull, dingy gray and that idiotic looking "blue diaper".
If ultimately this move (if true) saves NW money by adopting a cleaner, cheaper paint scheme...so much the better. I'm sure reducing the cost of the paint job is the primary intent of this move.

So yes.....a paint job is far more important than a lot of airline people (execs and front line people) realize.

Northwest....GO FOR IT.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/6/2003 4:36:44 PM electradude wrote:

acmech...
As one of your (NW) frequent flyers, allow me to enlighten you....THE HE** I DON"T CARE ABOUT PEELING PAINT AND SHABBY LOOKING PLANES!!!
I, like all other non industry flyers, have no other way to judge an airline other than the "appearance" of there fleet and the attitudes of their people. If I see a grungy, dirty wreck of a plane outside the terminal window....I immediately start to wonder...what else are they to cheap to do to that plane. I can't "pop the hood" to check the engines. I can't pull the wall coverings off to see how corroded the skin and wiring is. The only thing that John Q Pax has to go by is "does it look like they take care of their planes". The late, and sometimes great, Eastern toward the end of the first version, had some REAAALLLYY shakey looking crates. I found myself shying away from them because I felt that if they didn't even bother to give the appearance of a well maintained airline, what was NOT visible to the naked eye is probably even in worse shape. I have sat in gates and heard other passengers comment about the decrepit condition of an airlines planes and wonder out loud about "that rust bucket" they were about to fly on. I have witnessed passengers refuse to fly on airplanes that didn't look to be in too good a shape from the windows of terminals. So YES....a paint job matters very much.
[/blockquote]

Since you mention Eastern...back in the latter days of Captain Eddie's reign (late '50s/early '60s), his penny-pinching was the stuff of legend.
One allegedly true story was that Rickenbacker issued an edict that only one side of an aircraft was to be kept washed and clean. Back then, when planes parked parrallel to the gates, and passengers boarded via front and rear stairs, Captain Eddie sure as heck wasn't going to waste money cleaning the side of the plane that the passengers couldn't see!