Yeah, this. At least the old one was distinctive. And I wouldn’t call it baby blue. It’s more a sky blue. I’ve seen it at LAX a time or three, and it was a more intense blue than insipid baby blue.
The new scheme is boring and has no distinctive look at all. Makes me think of 1960s “stewardess” uniforms (NOT PSA’s uniforms).
It’s impossible for me to separate politics from my feelings on the colors. I’m not sure how much of my response is rationalizing my immediate aversion to anything Trump suggests. That said, I’ve never really loved the pale blue. It’s always seemed kind of blah to me, and mostly iconic for who gets to ride in it rather than for the aesthetic qualities of the design itself. I didn’t hate it, just never really had strong feelings about it. The new design is similarly kind of blah to me. I agree with those who said it looks like just another airliner. So, to the extent that I can be objective about the design (I can’t), it’s pretty much a coin toss for me.
But I think Machine Elf’s post pushes me over into the “old” camp.
I find them equally “meh”. If the new design were truly “bold” I think a lot more people would hate it. I dunno, the old one is not dated like, 70’s shag rug dated, it is iconic, but not really impressive iconic. It’s a cointoss really. I guess I will put old since I’m generally a traditionalist.
Don’t really care for either of them.
And frankly I’m disappointed in Trump’s choice. It’s not nearly Trumpian enough. Where’s the gold plating? Where is his name plastered all the way down each side? If he wants to be our King, he’d better start looking the part!
New scheme too garish to my eyes.
Old one looks tasteful, classic even. Of course I’d prefer the A/C to be the 707, as it has that sleek classic airliner look.
I’ve seen the phrase “robin-egg blue” used frequently in reference to AF1. I think this is a reference to the very light blue used on the underbelly and engine nacelles; the color on the darker blue has been described as a “luminous ultramarine blue.”
The current scheme was developed by Raymond Loewy, a man whose artistic contributions earned him such monikers as “the man who shaped America” and “the father of industrial design.” He worked with Jackie Kennedy to make it happen. This may be part of why Trump wants to change it: he’s described the darker blue on the plane as a “Jackie Kennedy color”, and wants to make the plane look “more American.” :rolleyes:
I’m a big fan of Raymond Loewy and think the old scheme has a certain air of class and refinement.
The new scheme seems to my eye to be classless and crude.
Is the new paint scheme still a proposal, or is it going forward?
It needs Congressional approval, and a lot of Democrats probably won’t OK the new paint job.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/politics/trump-new-air-force-one-colors-abc/index.html
Cool, thanks!
I kinda like the new scheme better, a little, but not so much that I’d get rid of the iconic look. The new scheme is more basic. I’d rather have a distinctive look for our plane even if I don’t especially like the look that we have.
But the old scheme is fine. I wouldn’t change it just for change’s sake. I certainly wouldn’t want to pay money for a new scheme.
If the new paint job is only for the new planes which are coming out in the 2020s, then it shouldn’t cost much, if anything, more than the current airplanes’ paint, since those blank white planes would have to be painted in something anyway. The new paint would be tantamount to the old paint, cost-wise.
I don’t really like either, to be honest. I find it curious that neither really is red, white and blue; the old uses a light blue found absolutely nowhere on the U.S. flag and uses no red at all, and the new uses a paint job that appears to use gold (well, of course it does, it’s Trump) and the red and blue look too dark. It also looks too much like a US Airways jet.
However, I am swayed by Machine Elf’s point that the old scheme looks like, well, like Air Force One. It’s instantly recognizable as being the plane of the President of the United States. The design has that unshakeable advantage. It’s old, yes, but then the White House is rather an old design, too.
Would the new scheme actually cost anything? AFIK no one has proposed repainting the current planes, rather the new scheme would be used on the new planes the Air Force is already buying anyway. Those planes will need to be painted no matter what. I doubt it would cost any more to paint them in the new scheme versus the old scheme (barring perhaps slight variations in the price of different colored paints or a more complex design costing more to paint, although neither are all that complex). I suppose some graphic designer probably got paid to design the new scheme, but that’s already a sunk cost.
FWIW, neither does Marine One, which features a drab, utilitarian white-and-green livery. If any aircraft is in need of an updated paint scheme, that would be it.
Same goes for The Beast, AKA “Cadillac One.” I guess gloss black is OK, but if a redo were proposed, I wouldn’t necessarily want it to be just red/white/blue.
FWIW, the paint scheme of AF1 before the current scheme didn’t feature any of the flag colors, either. It was also rather hideous.
Don’t much care for the light blue, so I’d go with the new design. Which is not to say I think it’s a good idea to spend money just on a paint job. But it looks like a very different aircraft–upper cabin seems to be a lot longer. Since color is evidently a non-issue for cammo purposes, I think anodized red or just polished silver would be totally cool.
Well, red and white are flag colors. But you’re right, without any blue it doesn’t really evoke the flag, does it?
Actually the white design with red at both ends looks just like a big Tylenol. 
Do you know what his 757 looks like? :rolleyes:
That red looks more like orange to me. But you’re right, without any blue it doesn’t really evoke the flag.
OTOH, is it absolutely necessary to evoke the flag? ISTM that any vehicles which insists on doing so is going to look more like a fourth-of-July parade float than a high-class Presidential transport. AF1 isn’t supposed to specifically represent a flag, it’s supposed to be a flying ambassador of the nation. An actual American flag provides elegance and symbolism and works great as a modest player in the overall livery, but things that insist on being decorated entirely with the same colors and shapes as the US flag (e.g. bunting, or possibly Evel Knievel) just come across as gaudy and celebratory, which is not necessarily the right tone for official state visits.
I’m going to stop well short of calling the new paint scheme offensive but it certainly doesn’y look right to me either. I suppose it’s just resistance to change for no obvious reason. The old paint is what I know and as blandly inoffensive as it is, it looks right.
#/media/File:Cadillac_One_(September_2018)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
