American Airlines New Logo

[DolphinManatee]

I see the head of an eagle in the logo. (The silver part is the beak.)

[cajunaggie08]

I think the designers we looking at a City of Arlington water tower with one eye open and said "hey, we can curve that star to look like a beak, add some blue, and ooo gradients."

[vmd9]

I think the designers we looking at a City of Arlington water tower with one eye open and said "hey, we can curve that star to look like a beak, add some blue, and ooo gradients."

Other than being the same colors, I don't see any resemblance...

[BlueSky]

I think the designers we looking at a City of Arlington water tower with one eye open and said "hey, we can curve that star to look like a beak, add some blue, and ooo gradients."

Other than being the same colors, I don't see any resemblance...

Cut off the left 2/3rds of it and you sure will. If it was on paper you'd run the scissors along the left edge of the white that shows between the star and the red part.

A friend at AA just said to me that she felt AA wanted to be sure to have elements of the USAirways look in case the merger happens. And looking at USAirways' tails, I kinda see that with the sublimated stripes.

Hadn't thought of it from that point of view.

[STL FANATIC]

I like everything about this except, as others have mentioned, for the odd feeling that comes from the icon being designed to mimic the tail of a plane, but the tail not actually featuring that design. Yet, I like the design that IS on the tail. So I can't fully embrace it, but it's nice.

[Mac the Knife]

Not sure why AA feels the need to mess with an iconic logo, especially when gradients enter the picture.

Actually, there's a reason behind it: the planes themselves. Some of the planes they've ordered have composite fuselage parts, making their standard silver plane skin impossible to duplicate. So they went ahead and replaced everything in a full-fledged rebranding.

They could have just started painting their planes silver and not screw the whole look up.

No, actually I read an article about this - apparently they couldn't duplicate the 'stainless' look they wanted. Because they couldn't get a uniform look under the old livery, they sought a new one.

Fact is though, I don't give a what a plane I'm boarding looks like. I care whether it takes off and lands without killing or permanently injuring me. Anything beyond that? I'm not all that concerned.

[tBBP]

A lot of y'all done already hit on some of my initial thoughts and feedback. I know when I first saw that logo, I was like "wow--they designed that explicitly to fit on the vertical stabilizer tailfin of their aircraft--smart move!". Makes sense, since that's where airline logos are most prominently displayed--most of the time, anyway. I actually really like this new logo, particularly the way it looks like half an "A" but still has the hidden eagle profile in there, a well-known component of their branding. The gradients may or may not wear well over time, but I don't mind them--it'll probably still look nice going across the sky.

If it actually was on the tailfin, of course. Except, apparently, it's not. A big, ginormous American-flag-esque design is going there.

Wow...that tail. So understated.

Reminds me of the car dealers that put out 500 American flags and then have a 100-foot pole with another flag the size of a gym floor. It's a little much even for the most avid patriot.

An artist's rendering:

My thoughts exactly. As soon as I saw that tailfin design, the very first thought that went through my mind was "WAY TOO GAUDY". The next one was "well, there goes a big giant target going across the sky", that being in reference to the still-very-existent anti-American sentiment in certain areas overseas. With as many different locations as AA flies to, previously all anyone would see was a AA and an eagle...now they'll see this giant American flag streaking across the sky. Wonder if they thought at all about the fact that those tails make very appealing targets for improved-range RPGs (that's rocket-propelled grenades for those not familiar)--and as one who's been on a plane that's been shot at, the feeling of "evasive maneuvers" while seeing four or five balls of fire headed towards your aircraft is...a little disconcerting, to say the least. If they absolutely felt the need to do that, subtle would have been the much better way to go, like US Air does now. And speaking of that...

A friend at AA just said to me that she felt AA wanted to be sure to have elements of the USAirways look in case the merger happens. And looking at USAirways' tails, I kinda see that with the sublimated stripes.

Hadn't thought of it from that point of view.

Wait--what? How many more airline mergers need to happen in this country? Pretty soon it'll be just one big monopoly, won't it? Then again, the signs have been pointing that way for quite a while now. If this does go down, though, I hope to hell they tone down that tailfin design, if not just put the corporate logo back there, like it appeared at first it was intended to be. I kinda wonder how much if any of the "Texas mentality" (the one that goes "everything's bigger in Texas") went into the decision to make those tails so gaudy. I mean, the airline is headquartered in Fort Worth, after all, and it's primary base of operations is at DFW. Which, as one poster pointed out...

I think the designers we looking at a City of Arlington water tower with one eye open and said "hey, we can curve that star to look like a beak, add some blue, and ooo gradients."

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they did look to that as inspiration.

Not sure why AA feels the need to mess with an iconic logo, especially when gradients enter the picture.

Actually, there's a reason behind it: the planes themselves. Some of the planes they've ordered have composite fuselage parts, making their standard silver plane skin impossible to duplicate. So they went ahead and replaced everything in a full-fledged rebranding.

They could have just started painting their planes silver and not screw the whole look up.

Not gonna happen. Metallic paint is already expensive enough as it is, especially for an airplane. Additionally, one of the genius benefits of AA's unpainted planes is savings in weight--and you wouldn't believe just how much weight all that paint adds to an aircraft, to the tune of several tons. And as we all know, more weight = more fuel. (And now you can see the cost-savings benefit.) And I'm sure pilots would rather not burn any more center-tank fuel during take-off than absolutely necessary, no more than airlines wanna order it...Jet-A is expensive stuff. Of course then comes the problem of keeping those things waxed to lessen the friction as they fly through the air--another fuel-cost point of concern. But, as Mac pointed out, most if not all new aircraft are made up of increasingly more composite parts, which in the future will make unpainted planes such as AA's current ones all but impossible.

[andrewharrington]

That's one thing that's often overlooked. When you think about it, paint seems negligible, but then consider the weight of an average gallon that you buy from Home Depot and imagine how many gallons it takes to cover an entire aircraft. I always thought of American's bare-skinned planes as a pioneer in 'green' design. It was a design choice that maximized the efficiency of the vehicle.

[Cola]

Not gonna happen. Metallic paint is already expensive enough as it is, especially for an airplane. Additionally, one of the genius benefits of AA's unpainted planes is savings in weight--and you wouldn't believe just how much weight all that paint adds to an aircraft, to the tune of several tons. And as we all know, more weight = more fuel. (And now you can see the cost-savings benefit.) And I'm sure pilots would rather not burn any more center-tank fuel during take-off than absolutely necessary, no more than airlines wanna order it...Jet-A is expensive stuff. Of course then comes the problem of keeping those things waxed to lessen the friction as they fly through the air--another fuel-cost point of concern. But, as Mac pointed out, most if not all new aircraft are made up of increasingly more composite parts, which in the future will make unpainted planes such as AA's current ones all but impossible.

No way I believe that. Maybe a hundred pounds...a few hundred would be pushing it with the stickers and all. But 2-5,000 pounds of paint, how is that possible?

[Cosmic]

Not gonna happen. Metallic paint is already expensive enough as it is, especially for an airplane. Additionally, one of the genius benefits of AA's unpainted planes is savings in weight--and you wouldn't believe just how much weight all that paint adds to an aircraft, to the tune of several tons. And as we all know, more weight = more fuel. (And now you can see the cost-savings benefit.) And I'm sure pilots would rather not burn any more center-tank fuel during take-off than absolutely necessary, no more than airlines wanna order it...Jet-A is expensive stuff. Of course then comes the problem of keeping those things waxed to lessen the friction as they fly through the air--another fuel-cost point of concern. But, as Mac pointed out, most if not all new aircraft are made up of increasingly more composite parts, which in the future will make unpainted planes such as AA's current ones all but impossible.

No way I believe that. Maybe a hundred pounds...a few hundred would be pushing it with the stickers and all. But 2-5,000 pounds of paint, how is that possible?

Go to Home Depot, pick up one of those five gallon buckets of paint and then think about painting an entire airplane. I'd say you'd probably need 100 gallons of paint... 10 lbs per gallon... 1,000 lbs of paint easy. Plus, they aren't using Dutch Boy; I'd bet the paint is probably much heavier than your average household paint with the beating that the plane takes.

[STL FANATIC]

Not gonna happen. Metallic paint is already expensive enough as it is, especially for an airplane. Additionally, one of the genius benefits of AA's unpainted planes is savings in weight--and you wouldn't believe just how much weight all that paint adds to an aircraft, to the tune of several tons. And as we all know, more weight = more fuel. (And now you can see the cost-savings benefit.) And I'm sure pilots would rather not burn any more center-tank fuel during take-off than absolutely necessary, no more than airlines wanna order it...Jet-A is expensive stuff. Of course then comes the problem of keeping those things waxed to lessen the friction as they fly through the air--another fuel-cost point of concern. But, as Mac pointed out, most if not all new aircraft are made up of increasingly more composite parts, which in the future will make unpainted planes such as AA's current ones all but impossible.

No way I believe that. Maybe a hundred pounds...a few hundred would be pushing it with the stickers and all. But 2-5,000 pounds of paint, how is that possible?

Go to Home Depot, pick up one of those five gallon buckets of paint and then think about painting an entire airplane. I'd say you'd probably need 100 gallons of paint... 10 lbs per gallon... 1,000 lbs of paint easy. Plus, they aren't using Dutch Boy; I'd bet the paint is probably much heavier than your average household paint with the beating that the plane takes.

Not that it might not still be heavy, but isn't dry paint by nature going to be much lighter than wet paint? Evaporated water and all that?

[IceCap]

I don't like this at all. It both relies on web 2.0 style gradients/shading and current ultra minimalist trends. I'm honestly surprised the wordmark uses capital letters.

It just comes off, to me, as bland.

It doesn't even hold a candle to the old AA/eagle logo. That mark had a retro-ish charm to it. That may seem obvious, as it was a product of the 60s, but that was part of why it worked, in my opinion. It was a throwback to an earlier time, when commercial aviation was still fun and adventurous, not the headache-inducing schlep it is now.

That, and I just have a thing for a more blocky retro aesthetic. The old AA/eagle mark just hit all the right notes for me.

NatsFan2004, don't worry about it. I got what you meant. The whole "if you don't have a degree in graphics design then you just shouldn't comment" attitude some have around here is really off-putting. I know that's not what drdougfresh and BrandMooreArt were getting at, but it could have been read like that. You guys are obviously VERY talented and know your stuff. It's because of your expertise that I look forward to what you two have to say. What you have to say, however, can come across as condescending, and as a result get lost. Take it from someone who doesn't have any formal training in graphic design, yet knows what he likes and why he likes it.

[CS85]

I'll give them props for having the balls to infuse a gradient in an era of design that loathes anything but dimensionless minimalism.

[BlueSky]

Buc's right about the paint. I worked at AA for many years and it was a conscious choice all the way back to the DC-3 days not to carry the weight of the paint around. That decision illustrates one of the important lessons I learned at AA: scale. Think of a cherry tomato. How much does one cost? But when an AA flight attendant noted that few passengers ever ate the ones in their salads and suggested AA eliminate them, it saved over $100,000 annually because that's how many salads AA was serving every year.

An airline like AA flies 2,000-3,000 flights a day using 600+ aircraft. Calculate the fuel used by one plane to carry the paint for one mile and multiply it by the total miles flown annually and that number gets real big real quick. And that was when fuel was .40/gal as opposed to whatever it is now (it's been as high as $4+/gal).

As for the actual weight of the paint, IIRC it ranges from several hundred pounds on an MD-80 to 1,000-2,000 lbs. for a big widebody like a 747.

And don't forget the costs of initially painting the plane and then maintaining it, which are also substantial (though somewhat offset by having to polish the bare metal).

FWIW, from personal experience there wasn't much in the airline world more striking or beautiful than one of those AA Silverbirds fresh from overhaul when they were polished to a mirrorlike shine.

I've started thinking of this as "the pull-tab" because the eagle head (or beak?) reminds me of one of those, well, pull-tabs they put on things to help you remove them. The red and blue look like a screen protector or something about to be peeled off.

I have to give Delta props over AA because while it took them a few tries, they finally managed to get a nice, modern look on their airplanes while still keeping the widget. AA just totally left the previous look in the dirt.

Speaking of Delta, here's a brief digression for some livery trivia. What's off or unusual about this pic?

[Cosmic]

Not gonna happen. Metallic paint is already expensive enough as it is, especially for an airplane. Additionally, one of the genius benefits of AA's unpainted planes is savings in weight--and you wouldn't believe just how much weight all that paint adds to an aircraft, to the tune of several tons. And as we all know, more weight = more fuel. (And now you can see the cost-savings benefit.) And I'm sure pilots would rather not burn any more center-tank fuel during take-off than absolutely necessary, no more than airlines wanna order it...Jet-A is expensive stuff. Of course then comes the problem of keeping those things waxed to lessen the friction as they fly through the air--another fuel-cost point of concern. But, as Mac pointed out, most if not all new aircraft are made up of increasingly more composite parts, which in the future will make unpainted planes such as AA's current ones all but impossible.

No way I believe that. Maybe a hundred pounds...a few hundred would be pushing it with the stickers and all. But 2-5,000 pounds of paint, how is that possible?

Go to Home Depot, pick up one of those five gallon buckets of paint and then think about painting an entire airplane. I'd say you'd probably need 100 gallons of paint... 10 lbs per gallon... 1,000 lbs of paint easy. Plus, they aren't using Dutch Boy; I'd bet the paint is probably much heavier than your average household paint with the beating that the plane takes.

Not that it might not still be heavy, but isn't dry paint by nature going to be much lighter than wet paint? Evaporated water and all that?

Yeah, you got me there. Paint still adds up, though.

[RyanB06]

Speaking of Delta, here's a brief digression for some livery trivia. What's off or unusual about this pic?

The logo's rotated 90 degrees. The red should be on the bottom.

[BlueSky]

Speaking of Delta, here's a brief digression for some livery trivia. What's off or unusual about this pic?

The logo's rotated 90 degrees. The red should be on the bottom.

Correct...that was the way Delta originally used the widget. It was changed pretty quickly to this:

[tBBP]

Ah, Delta...many many good times and memories of my time there. I came in under the "flowing colors" regime, but we still had plenty planes painted up in the old scheme above roll up into our gates at PNS (yeah, "penis "—it was a running joke for us, too), mostly the old tri-jets (loud as those things were, it was still always fun getting a '27 into our station). I left right before they nailed down their now-current scheme...didn't much care for it then, probably still wouldn't if I saw it today±bur these days I'm much too busy watching other vehicles around me on the road to catch myself plane-spotting somewhere.

In any case, I guess we'll see how this new corporate brand/identity?livery holds up over time—giant streaking American flag and all.

[BlueSky]

Every time I look at that new AA tail I sense C.R. Smith rolling over in his grave. Looks like the tail snagged a circus tent on a low flyby or something.

[ColeJ]

i really wonder how quickly this will affect the american airlines center... as mentioned, every seat has the old AA logo sublimated on there, and there's a big AA on the front of the building... AND a huge one painted on the roof.