Oceanic's livery is said to look nice without much detail. I tried the same with CAS but instead it was deemed too boring. What's the difference?
It's like asking why Air France's livery is good and why China Eastern's is bad: They're both simple, but one is good and one is terrible. It's almost as if good design has nothing to do with how simple or complicated a design is but instead is about aesthetics, conveying a message, and eliciting an emotional response in the viewer. Shocking, right?
Since this thread is about critique and understanding what makes something good and what makes something bad, I'll give my honest explanation of why I like and dislike some liveries and hopefully that gives others insight into what they can do to improve their work.
I'll start with Wright Brothers. I mean it when I say this is my honest opinion, and it has nothing to do with who designed it. I'm merely critiquing it based on what makes corporate identity successful or not.
Lets start with what a livery should do: It needs to identify the company, elicit emotions in the viewer that the company would like to project, and be aesthetically pleasing, in that order.
First, we'll start with identifying the company. The livery is only mildly successful in this aspect, it's unique for sure and there's no way you're going to confuse it for a different airline's aircraft. However, the titling isn't exactly clear and from a distance it would be hard to read. Also, the logo is very complicated, and lacks contrast that would make it easily identifiable when scaled down or viewed from a distance. On top of this, the silhouettes and other images posted on the fuselage distract from the titling and compete for the viewers attention. If I showed a random person this plane for 1 second, I suspect many people would not be able to then tell me what airline this was. This also goes for the logo. If an average person only had 1 second to look at the tail of the plane and was then asked to draw the logo on it, they would have a lot of trouble with this.
Secondly, it needs to elicit the emotions in the viewer that the company would like to project. Traditionally for airlines this would be things like Safety, Confidence, Reliability, and other neutral feelings like that. In the case of this livery, the colors do not work well together. Dark red text on a light blue background is both hard to read and not aesthetically pleasing. Overall, I think the average person would look at this livery and be confused as to what it was trying to be, or otherwise would not know what to think.
Thirdly, it needs to be aesthetically pleasing. I've made my view clear on this, but I suppose it's a personal opinion. However, I can say with absolute certainty that no one in any design profession would rate this well.
Let's look at a more successful livery: Middle West. This was posted by N664US and I commented that I thought it was really quite successful, so I'd like to take a look at why.
Firstly, identifying the company. The livery is a bit generic in terms of its absolute design. However, Green is a lesser used color in airline liveries and so that does help. The logo, however, is extremely successful. It's simple, the symbology is obvious, and if I showed it to a random person for one second, I suspect they'd do a pretty good job of drawing it. As well, it can easily scale up and down, and be depicted in monochrome or color and still be recognizable. The titling is also clear, easy to read, and there are no extraneous details distracting me from the important aspects on the image.
Secondly, it needs to elicit good feelings in the viewer. When I look at this plane, It looks like what I expect an airplane to look like. Silly, I know, but when people who don't fly often get on a plane, they don't want any surprises. It's a clean, simple, look and that projects calm, uncluttered emotions in the viewer, which in turn give them confidence that they're boarding an airplane owned by a company they can trust.
Thirdly, it needs to be aesthetically pleasing. Here, again, the livery is sucessful. The titling is clean, easy to read, and appealing. The logo is also nice, and I'd enjoy looking at it etched into a wine glass in first class, for example. The pattern of the wheat flower could also be used to create bespoke patterns that could be used on things from cabin dividers to linens to flatware, creating a total brand experience that delights the viewer and helps to reinforce the brand image at every point along the customers journey.
Branding is complicated, there's a reason companies pay millions of dollars for trained designers to create and manage their brand image. Customers opinions of a company are always changing, and being reinforced by every detail they interact with a brand. The more simple, pleasing, and delightful the experience, the more likely the customer will have a positive image of the company even if they have had bad experiences as well. On the other hand, unsuccessful branding can reinforce negative images of a company, and even if they have good experiences otherwise.
The accusation that I'm somehow "trolling" when I give my opinion or otherwise am not honestly stating what I think of people's work is, frankly, insulting, and I want to make it clear that when I offer my opinion, I'm offering it for the good of the designer. On the same token, I appreciate when others make honest and candid comments on my work so that I can improve it, and I truly do take those opinions to heart.