9 replies to this topic

[Avelo]

After so much time trying and failing at building an established airline brand, I was almost going to give up designing liveries. But with the restarting of two realistic worlds where I could start over from scratch, I thought about relaunching one of my previously failed brands: Canadian Air System. This time I put much more effort in creating a recognizable identity and avoided being rushed in the creation of liveries as I used to do in the past. Even after posting my images in the gallery, I would still go back to make edits to improve my brand, though I no longer keep deleting and posting new images like before.

Now that I briefly explained how I developed CAS, I'd like to show you how my brand has evolved over time. Attached here are a few images I made to give you a sneak peak; you'll see more of them in my gallery by clicking this link: http://www.airline-e...roupgroupe-cas/

Once you see my gallery, feel free to tell me which of the liveries you like best

Current logos:
 CAS_Logo.png   54.78KB   0 downloads
 CAS_Cargo_Logo.png   42.35KB   0 downloads  CAS_Express_Logo_2.png   48.97KB   0 downloads  C2_Logo_2.png   33.31KB   0 downloads

Logo history:
 CAS_Logo_History.png   103.11KB   0 downloads

[Zacca]

so glad you did it!

you always had potential, you just needed patience, now there you are, with a nice brand on your hands. i'm glad you don't quit livery making and gladder because now you're on the right track

[bAnderson]

I have a few inputs about the brand. First of all, it doesn't make too much sense for your airline to have C2 airlines. I think it's a branch that's trying to copy Rouge but is unnecessary weight to a pretty decent brand that would be better without it. Second, as much as CAS looks like a nice acronym, the actual name of the airline should be somewhere on the plane. There are very few airlines that are known by their acronym, barring LATAM, TAP, and SAS. And even SAS has "Scandinavian" as the title. LATAM and TAP names are in Spanish and Portuguese, and it's more because they have a long name most people wouldn't care to pronounce. In short, CAS works for some things but Canadian Air System (or even Canadian) would work better in my opinion. Finally, the modern livery is a very disappointing finale to an otherwise good brand. It's a mixture of Turkish airlines and Ut Air. There's so many possibilities for your modern livery. What you have now is not the right thing.

[Zacca]

I have a few inputs about the brand. First of all, it doesn't make too much sense for your airline to have C2 airlines. I think it's a branch that's trying to copy Rouge but is unnecessary weight to a pretty decent brand that would be better without it. Second, as much as CAS looks like a nice acronym, the actual name of the airline should be somewhere on the plane. There are very few airlines that are known by their acronym, barring LATAM, TAP, and SAS. And even SAS has "Scandinavian" as the title. LATAM and TAP names are in Spanish and Portuguese, and it's more because they have a long name most people wouldn't care to pronounce. In short, CAS works for some things but Canadian Air System (or even Canadian) would work better in my opinion. Finally, the modern livery is a very disappointing finale to an otherwise good brand. It's a mixture of Turkish airlines and Ut Air. There's so many possibilities for your modern livery. What you have now is not the right thing.

LATAM doesn't have the name on their planes because LATAM is not a real acronym, it's just LAN+TAM   however, TAM never had its full name on their planes, but LAN used to have 'Chile' together with 'LAN' on their planes

[bAnderson]

Well LAN was... Lineas Aerea Nacional de Chile. And TAM was Taxi Aero Marilia. Obviously you didn't need told that. But I believe the reason that the full names weren't on the plane was because of where the airline wanted to do business. In most of Europe and North America, at least for TAM, most of the people won't remember Taxi Aero Marilia. But TAM? Catchy, shortens a phrase people don't understand. Same for LAN. Catchy, shortens a phrase people don't understand. TAP is the same way. SAS is the exclusion, I don't know why they keep their acronym or even their livery. 

[Zacca]

Well LAN was... Lineas Aerea Nacional de Chile. And TAM was Taxi Aero Marilia. Obviously you didn't need told that. But I believe the reason that the full names weren't on the plane was because of where the airline wanted to do business. In most of Europe and North America, at least for TAM, most of the people won't remember Taxi Aero Marilia. But TAM? Catchy, shortens a phrase people don't understand. Same for LAN. Catchy, shortens a phrase people don't understand. TAP is the same way. SAS is the exclusion, I don't know why they keep their acronym or even their livery. 

Yeah, acronyms are used by most airlines in Latin America (Varig, Vasp, Avensa, Viasa, Avianca, Copa, Pluna, Taca, etc, etc, etc) for the same reasons you mentioned, like Varig, Viação Aérea Rio-Grandense, c'mon, not even Brazilians can understand that. But just like SAS, you have other examples like TWA and Pan Am. In Canada, you have Canadian North but you also had Canadian Airlines, so an acronym is a good way to distinguish each airline; but I agree with you that the name along with the acronym would be a good feature.

[Avelo]

I have a few inputs about the brand. First of all, it doesn't make too much sense for your airline to have C2 airlines. I think it's a branch that's trying to copy Rouge but is unnecessary weight to a pretty decent brand that would be better without it.

To me, C2 is necessary so CAS could maintain its legacy image without alienating business travelers. I created C2 to be a leisure sub-brand focusing primarily on holiday routes in competition with Rouge, Sunwing, and Air Transat, all of which have different business models than Air Canada. If CAS were to try to serve the leisure market under its own name with a different business model, it would create unnecessary confusion and alienation among customers. And it can't serve that market under the same business model as its traditional clientele either, as it would be unable to compete against the aforementioned competitors. (That's the reason why AC created Rouge)

[bAnderson]

To me, C2 is necessary so CAS could maintain its legacy image without alienating business travelers. I created C2 to be a leisure sub-brand focusing primarily on holiday routes in competition with Rouge, Sunwing, and Air Transat, all of which have different business models than Air Canada. If CAS were to try to serve the leisure market under its own name with a different business model, it would create unnecessary confusion and alienation among customers. And it can't serve that market under the same business model as its traditional clientele either, as it would be unable to compete against the aforementioned competitors. (That's the reason why AC created Rouge)

Well again, I think it's unnecessary. If your brand cannot make a profit with its business model on a certain route, then either the airline needs to be changed or the route abandoned. Think of it this way. If you were to operate the flights with the same business model as all the others, you wouldn't compete with the LCCs, they'd win. So use your aircraft for something that the LCC can't. You don't have to start a new airline to compete in a small market. I know Rouge and Canadian did but it's not necessary for your airline, especially with the amount of competition AE has.

[Avelo]

Well again, I think it's unnecessary. If your brand cannot make a profit with its business model on a certain route, then either the airline needs to be changed or the route abandoned. Think of it this way. If you were to operate the flights with the same business model as all the others, you wouldn't compete with the LCCs, they'd win. So use your aircraft for something that the LCC can't. You don't have to start a new airline to compete in a small market. I know Rouge and Canadian did but it's not necessary for your airline, especially with the amount of competition AE has.

I'm just trying to be as realistic as possible. I don't create brands just for AE, I also consider how it would theoretically function in the real world.

[Hans.]

I actually like all the brands you've come up with. The CAS brand is pretty good. It does seem a little plain (which is fine for the early years of the airline), but I really like the reindeer logo. I would suggest a more "vibrant" livery for the 2000s onward. It's hard, I know, to find the right balance. It's not difficult to make either a good 1960s livery or a good 2010s livery, but making a brand that carries smoothly over all eras of an airline is a challenge.