Originally Posted by
AerialPerspective
If that were true, Ansett Aviation Training would have changed their name.
My experience is that there's quite a nostalgia for Ansett, although I don't want us to get into this American thing of trying to re-create old, defunct airlines a dozen times over....... how many Pan Am's have we seen now and a year or two ago there was another one rumoured to be in the works.
As for 'brand-building', you mean taking a name from an already well known organisation, putting the word 'Australia' on the end of it, practically copying the logo and typeface of another company then paying exorbitant license fees to use that logo everywhere?? VA apparently can't even provide a coffee cup with the logo on it for their staff without having to pay a royalty fee for each individual item it is applied to, i.e. 100 cups, 100 fees.
Bain would save millions if they changed the name, certainly in license fees anyway. Given their mantra is not wasting money on anything they don't have to, it's only a matter of time before that 'line item' comes before a bean-counter then it'll be interesting to see if the first part of the name survives. At least they could buy the Ansett name only once and the old AN 'starmark' logo still looks pretty smart today, as does the typeface. Another iconic Landor design.
The customer base for simulator training is completely different to the customer base of an airline. Who cares what the training organisation is called? The reason its still called that is the name is as good as any, and they don’t have to change the signage.
I take your point about paying Branson anything, but the fact is that brand awareness is what advertisers actually pay for. Ansett would have zero brand awareness in most people under 40.
I am also in no doubt that Ansett really was a first class operation as far as the passengers went. Too bad it was owned by people with an ultimately different agenda