Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

New Qantas livery.

Old 1st Nov 2016, 01:46
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 867
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
They have- it looks less like a roo than the one on the tail
The Roo on the cowls should be the same as that on the nose - a classic Qantas logo with a real kangaroo image sporting wings.
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2016, 03:10
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Fris B. Fairing
In the lead up to Qantas' 50th anniversary in 1970 the logotype was revised with a more "chunky" style. Initially the "n" was a lowercase character but this was soon changed to uppercase. I seem to recall that this was because the lowercase "n" represented another letter in some languages. I think the all uppercase version looked better than anything before or since.

I remember this... my Mum and Dad still have some collateral that has that lower case N.

Here's my take on the logo... and I do say this from a design background...

There is a history and a character to Qantas typefaces over the years, all since the fifties have been italic, this has formed part of the character of the brand image in our collective minds.

The 60s logotypes were designed by Harry Rogers who also produced all of Qantas' posters during the 50s and 60s. Rogers' design evolved the slight italic character and produced a type style that was thicker and built on the original versions. Rogers also produced the ochre and red livery and the typeface shown in the 50th Anniversary logo was a complete alphabet designed by Rogers for Qantas and it was called 'cyclone'.

In 1984, I think it was fair to say the winged kangaroo was due to evolution, it was very much a forties design and its precept was not adaptable to modern design.

Enter Tony Lunn and Ron Dyer of Lunn, Dyer and Associates who I believe executed probably the most respectful. sound and brilliantly executed re-design I think I've seen.

The development of the triangle motif was brilliant, it effectively took the tail shape and adapted it to be applicable to other items, the triangle 'bleeding' off the edge of letterhead, etc. was the mark of a truly good design - one that looks natural on any item it is applied to - geometrically it was well sorted also - the kangaroo's nose, tail and foot all touched the triangle at the mid point of each axis. The word Qantas similarly, was precisely one half the height of the triangle. It was a very unified design.
It did this by showing respect for the previous liveries by an evolution of Harry Rogers' cyclone font, matching it with Helvetica italic light which lent a unified look to less important text as a natural extension of the logotype.
Enter 2007 and the need to take account of non-paint areas of the tail-plane and Hans Hulsbosch executed probably the worst adaptation possible. The synergy between the triangle and the word Qantas in the logotype was broken, the word looking like it was just thrown next to the logo or that something had gone wrong in the printing process and it wasn't properly aligned. The kangaroo lost it's grace (Lunn/Dyer actually used the original kangaroo ever so slightly modified with the wing removed), becoming something wholly different with all the wrong proportions. What is even more annoying is the number of times that it has been wrongly commented that Hulsbosch designed the 1984 livery and he never corrects those mis-perceptions.

Now we move to 2016. The typeface goes against the grain of all the previous ones, it has no sympathy with Qantas' brand image through 60-70 years. The silver area in front of the tail is an afterthought and cynically, just replaces the gold stripe Hulsbosch removed in 2007 (albeit thicker at the base). The replacement of the triangle motif with that silly tail shaped thing makes the whole logotype when stacked on top of each other look like it's falling over backwards - hardly forward movement of the old logo or any previous livery... when the tail shape precedes the word Qantas in the new typeface (horizontal logotype) it has no connection or synergy and the typeface looks like it's backhand.

And please, can the media stop the rubbish about it now being possible to know it's Qantas flying over because of the name on the underside... ANY aircraft that flies over is obviously Qantas from almost any altitude because of the way the read wraps around under the fuselage - side on, it's one of the most recognizable liveries from miles away because of the large area of red at the rear.

To me, this is a complete waste of money. The typeface will date very quickly and I wouldn't be surprised if there's another re-brand in 5 or so years.

What was wrong with the 1984 livery and if it needed sight revisions, why didn't they just engage Tony Lunn or Ron Dyer who are still active come in and modify it.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2016, 03:52
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,390
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
AerialPerspective

Many thanks for that insightful and forensic analysis.

why didn't they just engage Tony Lunn or Ron Dyer who are still active come in and modify it.
Probably because today's wunderkinder would think that Lunn and Dyer are yesterday's men or ...

Loss of corporate memory or ...

a bit of both.

Rgds
Fris B. Fairing is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2016, 04:12
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 405
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The new livery sucks.
On Track is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2016, 08:41
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it ."
Of course... but..
There's a lot of smoke and mirrors stuff happening within the Qantas boardroom to at the moment - in an attempt to deflect attention from other things.
I'm saddened that it's been allowed to get to this stage.
I'm presently unloading my shareholding.
Ta Ta.
.

Last edited by Stanwell; 19th Nov 2016 at 09:01.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2016, 15:00
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quite like the new font and I do think that the planes needed a refresh

But as others have mentioned this will all seem very dated, very soon.
Stagger Lee is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2016, 22:41
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 77
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Smoke and mirrors" is exactly what has been happening at Qantas for years!!!! All the hype of the 787 coming to Qantas.....replacing a 450 seat aircraft with a 236 seat aircraft!! Announcing hiring 170 new pilots over the next 3 years and at the same time the chief pilot saying that 50 pilots a year will retire for the next few years adds up to really less than a net gain of 7 pilots a year!!! It is the incredible shrinking airline!!!!!! New routes mean a lot more new aircraft than they currently have and replacing a jumbo with a 787 really requires 3 extra departures per day if you want to provide enough seats to cover the existing and then some room for passenger growth!!! Wake up to the facts..."the incredible shrinking airline"...."smoke and mirrors"!!!!!
cynphil is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2016, 20:19
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 610
Received 137 Likes on 44 Posts
Cynphil, while I can understand the lack of excitement about Qantas' plans, some of your facts are incorrect or out of date.

"The incredible shrinking airline"
The 789 is not replacing a 450 seat aircraft. The 744's seat ~350-360 pax. And as to the increase in pilot numbers, you neglect to include the roughly 200 guys returning from LWOP.

So yes, it's baby steps for the moment but thankfully we have stopped shrinking and we are now slowly growing.
Maybe the glass is actually half full?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2016, 21:54
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shall we look at the fleets then?

In 2009 when the little fellow got to run amuck the respective fleets stood as follows:

JQ around 36 airframes
QF around 190 airframes

today

JQ 122
QF 120 ish

That is a nett loss of around 80 airframes from Qantas mainline.
It is a long way back to parity....
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 19:46
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ummm....while we all love aircraft, how it looks on the plane isn't actually the main consideration. The logo and typeface will be used on advertising, letterhead, airport signage, posters, etc. The average passenger will spend more time looking at the logo on their napkin as they wait for their tray to be cleared than they will looking at the aircraft before they board. Decisions on branding and logos should be based on what most customers and prospective customers will see (e.g. Emails, website and advertisements). While it's nice make sure the planes look great the primary function of a logo and brand is to fill up the aircraft. Repainting aircraft is hard and expensive but the new look is already being used where it is most important - on things that drive passengers. A well designed press campaign is going to drive more passengers than what a plane looks like that is parked nose into a gate where the passengers never really get a close up look at it. I don't really have a preference between the old and new - but I guarantee most passengers or prospective passengers have noticed the change already, all of which helps Qantas break the image of being old and stogy - absolutely essential when you're up against Virgin that has a brand that is positioned as innovative. I make no comment on the relative merits on the two airlines but their marketing teams are trying to position the airlines in different ways.
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 19:44
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Revenue_Melb

"but I guarantee most passengers or prospective passengers have noticed the change already, all of which helps Qantas break the image of being old and stogy"

Ahh marketing, 'the triumph of spin over substance'

On what factual basis can you 'guarantee' anyone has noticed?
Do you work for Qantas? Work for T shirt Todd Samson and the brand experts?

Brand is a modern management cliche.

Qantas cost itself $100 million in 'brand value' in 2011 (10%), undertaking a malicious campaign aimed against the staff, indirectly the customers and indeed the nation when an industrial negotiation period no longer suited the management who orchestrated a grounding and lockout.That cost in GDP terms Australia's circa $250 million.


A 95 year old company has processes, culture and certain things that distance it from others. Qantas commanded a 'safety premium' and everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment.

“You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts.” Jim Collins from Good to Great

Being honest with themselves, management ought concede poor leadership, bad decisions and feeble attempts to corral the staff through IR and other implied threats actually adds to total operating cost. There is a lot of .literature out there confirming this hypothesis, not my opinion. Qantas may have 5,000 less FTE staff and most 'staff' are pay frozen, but the expenditure is up by $300 million. Wonder why? It isn't the small bonuses remaining staff received.

“Mediocrity results first and foremost from management failure, not technological failure.”

Qantas kicked an own goal in the brand denigration, they focused on the wrong things like aggressive growth in Asian franchises that have not yielded a dollar trade profit in 10 years!

A liquid overhaul and new envelopes does not change the reality. Qantas destroyed a lot of its built up $1.1 billion 'brand value' with campaign aimed at strong arming unions through Fair Work.
Am sure the Net Promoter Scores are fantastic. For the un-initiated, management consultants sell these little projects to companies who it turns out love the way they form part of the senior manager KPI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter

Alan Joyce and the Qantas revival: was there ever a crisis?

Alan Joyce has been handsomely rewarded for his 'performance' but as alluded to in this article, his remuneration is excessive compared to regional peers. His returns for shareholders was very poor, Qantas impaired their fleet in 2014, saving a lot of a depreciation book entry, and they got lucky with a big drop in oil prices.Without those two events (one management controlled) Qantas would still have lost money..Alan Joyce has come a long way from very humble roots in Ireland. However the question remains that was he the right leader in the first place?A liquid overhaul and 'brand' repair may in themselves seem necessary from time to time, but I would strongly suggest to you the 'brand damage' Qantas needed to repair was of their own making.
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 09:22
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Brand is not just about spin - it's how customers relate to a company. Logos and advertising form a major part of that. We might not like it but how an aircraft looks isn't as important as other elements. As I said, how the aircraft looks is one of the smallest ways a passenger will see the logo. I'm actually serious when I say that a passenger will probably spend more time looking at the Qantas logo on their napkin that comes with their drink than observing their aircraft. We might not like that but it's true.

Will customers notice the change? Yes and no. Some will be explicitly aware of the change, others will simply realise that their monthly points email seems a bit different and fresher.

The challenge from a brand perspective for Qantas appears to be to capitalize on the elements you mentioned (history, safety, reliability) but also to be seen as up to date, modern, stylish, etc.

An airline can't just say that they want to focus on history and past reputation. If virgin position themselves as being hip and young and stylish and Qantas doesn't address that then there's a large market segment they loose.

Ansett disappeared fifteen years ago - so pretty much any flyer under thirty has grown up with Virgin - they don't see virgin as the new kid on the block, they see them as an established carrier. That's a major challenge for Qantas - they can play up their history and reputation but its going to be seen as less relevant over time by a lot of flyers. They need to simultaneously play homage to their heritage and look cool, responsive and not afraid of change.

So the new logo appears a bit hipper, the change reinforces to customers that Qantas is changing and is not afraid to improve (e.g. Combats concerns it's an old fashioned airline stuck in the past). The logo change isn't for pilots, it isn't for aviation enthusiasts - it's designed to look good on advertising and collateral (of which how it looks on the aircraft is probably the least important part).

As Qantas and Virgin battle for a twenty something frequent flier how the plane looks is the least important element. How the website looks, how the app works, will be more important than what the plane looks like nose into a gate.
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 09:37
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh and in regard to this:
"everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment."
That film came out eighteen years ago in 1998. A 32yo frequent flier was 14 when it came out ..... and is unlikely to know about it or care.
I don't think Qantas has any commercial advantages for most of the market in relation to safety or perceptions of safety (e.g. That translate into bookings or higher yields). Maybe on some international routes but not domestically or trans Tasman. Even if people were surveyed "who is safer, virgin or Qantas" I doubt that it's going to influence bookings.

I'm going to guess that brand changes are designed to combat the potential negatives of an older, established brand - namely that it isn't seen by some customers as innovative.

Also worth mentioning that all customers are different. I'm sure you can find a demographic that believes Qantas is a trusted, established brand that is regarded as safer, who sees virgin as a young upstart (I'm going to guess Australian born white men aged 50 plus will fall into that category). That's an awesome advantage for Qantas - but that's not who the brand changes are for.
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 11:03
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by Revenue_Melb
Oh and in regard to this:
"everyone remembers the 'rain man' comment."
That film came out eighteen years ago in 1998. A 32yo frequent flier was 14 when it came out ..... and is unlikely to know about it or care.
Unfortunately it was 1988, and your 32yo was only 4 and even less likely to know about it or care.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 14:17
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whoops - good pick up!
Yeah, so anyone under about 42 doesn't give a crap about Rain Man.
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 19:01
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Revenue_Melb
You addressed many things in your post.
You failed to provide a fact. You 'guess' you could find a demographic of 50 year old men that may fall into that category...
Where is your data?

Here are some::
  • Qantas brand value loss during management escalated dispute $100 million.
  • Given your pseudonym "revenue" Qantas total revenue growth, just kept place with inflation at 3.65% that would be called almost 'organic' (economy wide) that is with a fleet reduction and management neglect as JQ was the 'new kid in town' and Alan believed it his creation! (again not supported by fact)
  • JQ added nearly 80 aircraft to their fleet from 2009. Their "revenue" contribution is static.Alan and the board were a little pre-occupied
  • The new livery painted aircraft is not a 787. That hasn't been assembled yet. It was an A330. JQ was given the first 787, and it hasn't done much with branding given their static 'revenue' since it started flying. Ever wonder what happened to Bruce?
  • There will be in excess of 500, 787 flying when Qantas gets its first.
  • A few mock ups are not actual product.


The major challenge for Qantas is not in branding, it is having a valid strategic direction.
Given Qantas has at various times in the tenure of the incumbent board and senior management needed $3 billion to compete with Virgin (December 2013) then six weeks later not needed it, been 'terminal' and transformed all within a few years, had Red Q to be set up in Singapore, no Malaysia, err we aren't sure then hastily abandoned. JQ HK was a first mover airline that despite not fitting the PPB (principle place of business) rules was pushed anyway, then abandoned, I would suspect that stopping digging their own holes is probably a good thing.


So please show the data that confirms Qantas is old and stodgy, given its revenue was grew organically during an extended period where the company was shelved in favour of the bright new upstart (JQ)



Where is it you work?
What is your source data, or is it an opinion?
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 02:00
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you're confusing brand with strategic direction. I'm talking about how customers view the Qantas brand / product. How they relate to it. Airlines around the world fly essentially the same pieces of metal - aircraft selection is one element that influences the customer experience and perception of the brand - but it isn't the most important element.

Let's consider it over time. When Virgin launched they didn't have any loyal customers. People selected them based on price and a few other elements. Today they are a powerful brand force in their own right. Many people travel with virgin because they feel it better represents who they are.

In other words, customers have a choice at hurtling though the airport in metal tubes built by the same manufacturers, travelling to/from the same airports. How airlines differentiate their tubes from their competitors is part of branding.

If you want to have a debate about strategic direction then that's for another thread - the discussion here is about the new logo and branding.

Your points about a lack of strategic direction are perfectly cromulent but that's actually a different discussion as to how Qantas communicates with its customers and how it positions itself in the market.

This is a rumor network - and you're looking for facts? 😜
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 10:46
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cromulent - I had to look it up, it comes from a cartoon.
Grown ups still watching cartoons? Would have been more impressed if you quoted from Dickens, but hey.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 17:56
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Revenue,
Thanks for your opinion. let us not confuse it with fact!

So given your opinion, is the yield improving with this re-branding?
How do the load factors look? Will a scrungy T-shirt inspired campaign translate to additional yield you know RPK?

Will it address the declining RASK/CASK margin as stated in the last monthly update, before strangely going three monthly...?

Or was it another triumph of spin over substance?
Tuck Mach is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.