# Southwest's New Look



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 9, 2014)

Another new paint scheme will be hitting the sky...


----------



## Ryan (Sep 9, 2014)

That's not bad looking!


----------



## Rob Creighton (Sep 9, 2014)

Like the colors. Not a huge fan of the big lettering of the name though. Makes it look like a flying billboard. Of course, I'm sure that's the point behind that.


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 9, 2014)

Didn't I read somewhere that a lot of paint on a plane really adds a lot of weight?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 9, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> Didn't I read somewhere that a lot of paint on a plane really adds a lot of weight?


I was thinking the same thing. Guess their low-cost fares won't be so low-cost any more


----------



## JayPea (Sep 9, 2014)

It's good for the local economy. Apparently a good percentage of Southwest's planes will be painted at a facility at Spokane's airport.


----------



## greatcats (Sep 9, 2014)

Must be low density paint! I remember Eastern Airlines some years ago turned their fleet into silver without the paint, claiming it saved weight and costs over a year's time. We know what happened to them. I like Southwest's colors, but agree about the large letters. While there are good fares to be had, when proposing trips and comparing them with United, Southwest is not necessarily a better deal at all. I did ride them once last year, from San Diego to Chicago, and I have to say I was very pleased with that flight. My friend and I managed to get bulkhead seats and we had a lovely lady who befriended us. Perhaps Amtrak could use some sprucing up of its image, too, but there are more pressing issues.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 9, 2014)

The Rainbow Connection! Maybe theyll use the Muppets in their Conmercials!!☺

As a long time SWA customer I care more about the Fare,the Schedule, the Service and the OTP than the Color of the Plane! ( but I do think American got it wrong with their current scheme, their Old Classic Silver and Red still is the Class of the Air IMHO!!!)


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 9, 2014)

Southwest's new livery is nice... but seems to follow the new "cookie cutter" plane design. Large lettering over a solid color fuselage and a design on the tail that extends down to the belly of the plane. It's almost identical to American's new livery (which is funny since they are the rivals behind LUV vs DFW).

The main reason airlines are painting their planes now? Boeing and Airbus are now making extensive use of composite materials. While composites are very light, they are also rather ugly (they are a sort of matte tan/brown color). It's also my understanding that while bare metal is okay to be exposed to the elements, composites need to have a layer of paint for protection.


----------



## PerRock (Sep 9, 2014)

Their new scheme brings their look even closer to Southwest Train's paint scheme. I always thought it was interesting that two unrelated companies, both in a similar buisness have the same name & same (or very similar) paint scheme.

Southwest Trains: http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/5/9/7/9597.1274863287.jpg

peter


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 9, 2014)

Having flown Air Canada, America West, American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Continental, Delta Airlines, Easyjet, Frontier, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, Northwest, Republic, Singapore, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and US Airways I remain a big fan of Southwest and fly them regularly. With Southwest you never need to worry about getting stuck on a tiny regional jet or paying change fees and your baggage fees are already included. I get the feeling that a lot of what people don't like about Southwest comes from old memories that are no longer applicable. Other folks seem to have erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings of what it's like to fly them. Personally I find Southwest the easiest domestic airline to work with _by far_ and unlike the other domestic airlines they've never tried to screw with me or leave me high and dry. They may not always be the cheapest but they're rarely the most expensive either. Their treatment of customers and employees has generally been better than many other airlines which is a big plus with me. Even if you never fly Southwest you can be certain that the cost you pay to fly is heavily influenced by Southwest's history of opening up entrenched markets with quick turns and aggressive pricing.


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 9, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Having flown Air Canada, America West, American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Continental, Delta Airlines, Easyjet, Frontier, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, Northwest, Republic, Singapore, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and US Airways I remain a big fan of Southwest and fly them regularly. With Southwest you never need to worry about getting stuck on a tiny regional jet or paying change fees and your baggage fees are already included. I get the feeling that a lot of what people don't like about Southwest comes from old memories that are no longer applicable. Other folks seem to have erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings of what it's like to fly them. Personally I find Southwest the easiest domestic airline to work with _by far_ and unlike the other domestic airlines they've never tried to screw with me or leave me high and dry.


My problem with Southwest is, they don't fly into my local airport. :mellow:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 9, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> > Having flown Air Canada, America West, American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Continental, Delta Airlines, Easyjet, Frontier, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, Northwest, Republic, Singapore, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and US Airways I remain a big fan of Southwest and fly them regularly. With Southwest you never need to worry about getting stuck on a tiny regional jet or paying change fees and your baggage fees are already included. I get the feeling that a lot of what people don't like about Southwest comes from old memories that are no longer applicable. Other folks seem to have erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings of what it's like to fly them. Personally I find Southwest the easiest domestic airline to work with _by far_ and unlike the other domestic airlines they've never tried to screw with me or leave me high and dry.
> ...


Does any airline Tom? Thought y'all weren't even on the airlines map!


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 9, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Devil said:
> ...


We have Delta - United - American - USAir - and a couple of those that fly to small cities in Florida once a day.

Our airport is the second largest in Kentucky.

No SW though!


----------



## rrdude (Sep 9, 2014)

greatcats said:


> Must be low density paint! I remember Eastern Airlines some years ago turned their fleet into silver without the paint, claiming it saved weight and costs over a year's time. We know what happened to them. I like Southwest's colors, but agree about the large letters. While there are good fares to be had, when proposing trips and comparing them with United, Southwest is not necessarily a better deal at all. I did ride them once last year, from San Diego to Chicago, and I have to say I was very pleased with that flight. My friend and I managed to get bulkhead seats and we had a lovely lady who befriended us. Perhaps Amtrak could use some sprucing up of its image, too, but there are more pressing issues.


The big name/logo may be gaudy, but if i was in charge of Amtrak's promotions, (and aren't you all glad I am not!) I'd *****-out every single car, engine, MOW car, and delivery truck so that the general public KNEW that it was Amtrak, and it was "fun to ride a train", yada, yada, yada...........


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 9, 2014)

I like the big blocks of primary colors. It looks like a toy. 

It's nitpicky, but I really wish Southwest would change their seat colors. They're so ugly.


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 9, 2014)

The new Southwest scheme is contemporary and to my eyes it's an improvement. Rickycourtney is correct that increased use of composites will put an end to polished aluminum exteriors. The argument over painted vs polished went on and on, inconclusively, as labor rates went in various directions and the technology to strip aircraft in an eco-friendly manner improved. Polished airplanes were not labor-free -- assuming you wanted to keep them looking good. EA did go from painted to polished, but AL/US went in the other direction and eventually so did AA. DL, UA, TW, CO, NW, PA, BN, and the other "majors" had gone to painted back when they began buying jets to replace piston aircraft. For that matter, the AA Airbus 300's (now in the desert, if not recycled into beer cans) were always painted.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 9, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


You'll soon be down to Delta, United, and American now that the latest unmitigated merger is wrapping up. Your issue is the same reason I've never flown JetBlue or Virgin America. Technically they're only about seventy miles away but the highway between us is clogged with traffic and in most cases if I'm flying I'm already pressed for time and not interested in adding another 1-2 hours of driving to each end of my trip.



SarahZ said:


> It's nitpicky, but I really wish Southwest would change their seat colors. They're so ugly.


Compared to some airlines out there Southwest colors are actually rather subdued.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 9, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's nitpicky, but I really wish Southwest would change their seat colors. They're so ugly.
> ...


It's not the contrast; I don't like the colors themselves.


----------



## JayPea (Sep 9, 2014)

I too like Southwest.....especially their colors!  . They fly in and out of really the only airport in the area worth discussing--Spokane--and I find their prices very competitive with other airlines, especially as the don't nickel and dime you with all these extra fees for this, that, or the other. The only thing that makes Southwest slightly disadvantageous for me is that it's a bit of a challenge when flying to my uncle's, who lives between Bloomington-Normal and Champaign. I was in hopes Southwest would retain service to Bloomington after they bought Air-Tran. Southwest said at first they'd keep Air-Tran's flights in and out of Bloomington but no such luck. As it is now the closest I can get is into Midway, St. Louis, or Indianapolis and arrange transportation to there. Both Frontier and Delta fly between Spokane and Bloomington but Frontier's schedule is so erratic and Delta's prices are higher than a cat's back. So Southwest it is.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 9, 2014)

One of the best things about flying Southwest:

Landing at Midway


----------



## JayPea (Sep 9, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> One of the best things about flying Southwest:
> 
> Landing at Midway


Agreed!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 9, 2014)

I've spent a bit of time digesting the news and I honestly think the new colors look fine.

Which is good because Southwest is the largest carrier in my city and their aircraft are extremely common.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Sep 9, 2014)

JayPea said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the best things about flying Southwest:
> ...


They just started flying DCA to Midway last month!


----------



## The Journalist (Sep 9, 2014)

As livery changes go this one's decent but hardly earth-shaking. I doubt I'll have any recollection of the old scheme once it's fully changed. The changes appear to be: move the airline name from the tail to the body (fine); end the orange further back (eh); and move the website script from the winglets onto the nacelles (good). They changed the look of their website to match this look as well.

Random thought: I wonder how much longer the "Southwest" name will stick. It's an artifact title at this point.

Edit: Anyone else find the new typeface on a blue background reminicent of the Facebook logo?


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 10, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> One of the best things about flying Southwest:
> 
> Landing at Midway


If you think that's fun... you should try flying into my beloved hometown airport, Burbank-Bob Hope. The runway at BUR is even shorter than the one at MDW so the pilots really have to slam on the brakes and there's no jetways so you get to use airstairs!


----------



## tp49 (Sep 10, 2014)

I like Southwest for what they are and use them semi-frequently.

I was never a fan of the "mustard rocket" livery and really like the current one. That said, what bugs me about the change are the title in that I think it is too big (but that's the industry norm now) and the font. I'd much prefer a smaller title above the windows in the block capital font they currently have on the tail or upper and lower case in something other than the facebook font.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 10, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the best things about flying Southwest:
> ...


Flying out of SNA is always fun too. Max power takeoff to a quick power cut.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 10, 2014)

tp49 said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Bob Hope and John Wayne have nothing on Princess Juliana.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 11, 2014)

Put a new livery on a plane and it's still a freakin pig, er, plane.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 11, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Bob Hope and John Wayne have nothing on Princess Juliana.


Standing on that beach as a wide body passes just a few feet over must be one hell of a rush! A plane spotter's nirvana.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 11, 2014)

I've never been to St. Maarten but the Old Hong Kong Airport provided a similar terrifying experience or thrill depending on your level of sanity! Benito Juarez in Mexico City was always a white knuckel experience also due to the density altitude, the mountains surrounding the Valley and the Short Runways!!

US Airports that I was always leery of take-offs and landings at included Washington National, San Diego, SFO and JFK!!!


----------



## railiner (Sep 11, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> I've never been to St. Maarten but the Old Hong Kong Airport provided a similar terrifying experience or thrill depending on your level of sanity! Benito Juarez in Mexico City was always a white knuckel experience also due to the density altitude, the mountains surrounding the Valley and the Short Runways!!
> 
> US Airports that I was always leery of take-offs and landings at included Washington National, San Diego, SFO and JFK!!!


Why JFK? One of its four active runway's (31L-13R) is nearly three miles long! It was an alternate Space Shuttle landing runway....

You probably meant LGA, which is sometimes "hairy", especially in bad weather.....


----------



## saxman (Sep 11, 2014)

Who doesn't miss this one!?




The classic!

BUR, SNA are pretty straight forward. Just short runways. Santa Barbara can be a challenge though as you make a last minute turn to line up for a short runway. The rich people don't want planes over their houses, so you have to approach from over the water. SFO has long runways, but is challenging do to the close proximity of your "partner" aircraft while on final to the 28's. You can almost waive to the people in the other plane.




Like this close.

The most challenging airport I've been to is Mammoth Lakes.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 11, 2014)

railiner said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > I've never been to St. Maarten but the Old Hong Kong Airport provided a similar terrifying experience or thrill depending on your level of sanity! Benito Juarez in Mexico City was always a white knuckel experience also due to the density altitude, the mountains surrounding the Valley and the Short Runways!!
> ...


Anything that involves water surrounding airports worries me ( cpuld have included Logan in Boston too)plus bird strikes were common there ( my Uncle is a retired Airline Capt and dislikes JFK, there were several overruns where planes went into the water and lots of delays!))


----------



## railiner (Sep 12, 2014)

Okay....I'll concede the bird-strike possibility....afterall, JFK is practically surrounded by a 'sanctuary' for them (what were they thinking!?), but I'd rather come in low over water, than tall building's, radio antenna's, or mountains during IFR weather.....

One of the biggest challenges of flying at JFK, is the huge traffic congestion together with all the other closeby area airports. That is more a problem for the ATC controller's, but you still have to watch out...

I think the old MKC "downtown" Kansas City was a 'fun' challenge. And the mountain airports, like Aspen, Jackson, Wy., and the like, into "box canyon's", or where you have to "spiral" around to climb out over surrounding miountains took some nerve....


----------



## JayPea (Sep 12, 2014)

The only airport I've landed at that involved an approach right over water was at Oakland. I've never been a nervous flyer, but that to me was just the slightest bit unnerving.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 12, 2014)

The only I can think of that ran off of the runway into the water at JFK in the last 35 or so years was an SAS (I think DC-10) plane in the early 80's. LGA on the other hand, I can think of at least two or three. I hate flying into LGA especially in bad weather due to the short runways, close proximity to water at the ends of three of the runways and no room for error.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 12, 2014)

Thanks for the correct info, I guess I had a Senior Moment so will add LGA to my list, but my uncle the airline Capt still doesn't like JFK for the other reasons, the runoffs are my mistake!


----------

