I have to say that it is very wise that the powers that be behind the United/Continental merger announced today decided to retain the “United” name, and not go with some sort of awful hybridized or hyphenated name, or even worse some new name of dubious meaning… but that is one @*#& hideous looking airplane right there.
Looks like the United name stays, but so does the Continental design identity. They should have just picked one whole branding regime and gone with it!
I’m perplexed. Does the above illustration mean that a United pilot will retain control of the wings, fuselage, and engines, but a Continental guy maneuvers the tail?
It is historically risky business to play mix-and-match with brands and design elements when a number of entities come together… or generally, for that matter. By definition there is no design integrity, and it can lead to confusion. The merger between JP Morgan and Chase provides another example, although that time, they apparently decided, “aw screw it, let’s just mash everything together.” In the logo below, the circular rotating thingy is derived from Chase, and I think the typeface is derived from JP Morgan.
I think it’s sort of lame, actually. It reflects the inability to make a real decision.
Of course, there is one particularly famous example of doing a Frankenstein combo job on a number of different design elements, and having it work beautifully (I guess I should specify, have the new design work beautifully… some cynics might say the jury is still out on the rest!)
It’s the Union Jack… a very clever combination of the flags of England, Scotland, and St. Patrick’s cross (an older Irish symbol) to signify the United Kingdom.
Unfortunately for design enthusiasts, if that preliminary airplane rendering above is any indication, this new United/Continental merger is no Union Jack. Let’s see if my spell checker picks up “fugly” (yep)