Alaska Airlines announced today that the company has signed an agreement to become the official airline of the San Francisco Giants for the next seven years, extending the partnership that Virgin America established with the organization in 2008. To celebrate this partnership and Alaska's commitment to the Bay Area, the company unveiled the design for an Airbus 321 featuring the Giants logo and team colors that will begin flying early next year.

Press release
https://newsroom.alaskaair.com/2017-09- ... sco-Giants


https://twitter.com/AlaskaAir/status/90 ... 124895232/

Wish they'd put the SF logo on the tail and paint the length/span of the Golden Gate along the fuselage as an orange cheatline...

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

The type of plane is the best part!

Jetmarc wrote:

Wish they'd put the SF logo on the tail and paint the length/span of the Golden Gate along the fuselage as an orange cheatline...

I'm guessing they will have Alaska branding on the tail, because as of right now there is absolutely no airline branding on that design which would render the sponsorship livery a pointless waste of money.

Great paint scheme.

Polot wrote:

Jetmarc wrote:

Wish they'd put the SF logo on the tail and paint the length/span of the Golden Gate along the fuselage as an orange cheatline...

I'm guessing they will have Alaska branding on the tail, because as of right now there is absolutely no airline branding on that design which would render the sponsorship livery a pointless waste of money.

Well it would be a fine use of money for the Giants, but it's unlikely Alaska would not use the tail to make sure people know it's an Alaska plane

edit: duh, giants aren't paying for this, so yeah pointless unless it says Alaska on the plane

Shouldn't this airplane feature CFM engines?

ITMercure wrote:

Shouldn't this airplane feature CFM engines?

I was just thinking that. Why use an IAE A321ceo outline when their fleet will be CFM-powered neos?

So does that make it the first Alaska Airbus?

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

Haha, as someone who lives 20 minutes from the main factory in Everett, I hear you.
But, I am still not thrilled that Tilden said he was a Boeing guy because his dad worked there. AS should buy what makes sense and not necessarily follow Boeing around...having said that, AS, step up as the launch customer for the 797!!

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

Not to worry. 99.9% of passengers wouldn't have a clue if they're flying on a Boeing or an Airbus or a Tupolev for that matter.

NameOmitted wrote:

The aircraft will be operated by Virgin America for the time being. The intent may be to leave the branding a little vague, and then slip the aircraft into the shop for a weekend to put Charlie on the tail once the merger actually happens.

AS doesn't have to wait until VX's AOC is officially merged into AS's to paint Chester on the tail, they would just need "Operated by Virgin America" titles on the aircraft in the meantime until then. It looks like that is what is written forward of the boarding door.

Proudly Boeing...

God it will be weird seeing Alaska on an Airbus

ITMercure wrote:

Shouldn't this airplane feature CFM engines?

Yes - whatever the A321Neo is flying with. I've flown in N921VA twice since it has been in service. Nice plane.

Personally I think that graphic is atrocious. I was born in the Bay Area, went to my one and only major league game in Candlestick Park in 1975 Giants/Padres, and I absolutely love the City By The Bay. I certainly hope Alaska does the Golden Gate Bridge / San Francisco more justice than the graphic we're looking at at the top of this thread!!!

What bridge is that supposed to be? Looks like an orange version of a generic suspension bridge; not related to either the Bay Bridge or Golden Gate

Chester sporting a Giants Hat on the tail would have made this plane perfect.

Jetmarc wrote:

Wish they'd put the SF logo on the tail and paint the length/span of the Golden Gate along the fuselage as an orange cheatline...

Agree. The bare tail looks off. The SF would look better there, even if they didn't expand the bridge length.

flybynight wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

Haha, as someone who lives 20 minutes from the main factory in Everett, I hear you.
But, I am still not thrilled that Tilden said he was a Boeing guy because his dad worked there. AS should buy what makes sense and not necessarily follow Boeing around...having said that, AS, step up as the launch customer for the 797!!

I live in Mukilteo, almost long walking distance from the Everett factory. I won't mention where I work, but I'm biased. I'd rather have seen the Giants logo on a 737-900ER.

Tilden's comments were made informally at a breakfast. I'm sure they'll make the best fleet choices going forward. AS is a well run airline. Hopefully, they'll conclude that returning to all-Boeing makes the best business sense.

Ummm plain white tail? I hope they throw in either the Virgin logo or the Alaska Man on it. This looks very "naked".

BoeingGuy wrote:

flybynight wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

Haha, as someone who lives 20 minutes from the main factory in Everett, I hear you.
But, I am still not thrilled that Tilden said he was a Boeing guy because his dad worked there. AS should buy what makes sense and not necessarily follow Boeing around...having said that, AS, step up as the launch customer for the 797!!

I live in Mukilteo, almost long walking distance from the Everett factory. I won't mention where I work, but I'm biased. I'd rather have seen the Giants logo on a 737-900ER.

Tilden's comments were made informally at a breakfast. I'm sure they'll make the best fleet choices going forward. AS is a well run airline. Hopefully, they'll conclude that returning to all-Boeing makes the best business sense.

The obsession over the comments made at a Seattle business leaders' breakfast is insane. But, even so, who cares if he has a preference for Boeing? Of course he is going to make the best decision for AS and its shareholders. All things being equal, he would pick Boeing; but to not be "thrilled" or otherwise upset over his comments is really taking it too far.

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Ummm plain white tail? I hope they throw in either the Virgin logo or the Alaska Man on it. This looks very "naked".

Perhaps they will but the airline isn't sure yet (or isn't ready to announce) whether these aircraft will be integrated into the Alaska fleet in the next year or if it will be branded as Virgin? Because I agree, something should be on the tail.

jbs2886 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

flybynight wrote:

Haha, as someone who lives 20 minutes from the main factory in Everett, I hear you.
But, I am still not thrilled that Tilden said he was a Boeing guy because his dad worked there. AS should buy what makes sense and not necessarily follow Boeing around...having said that, AS, step up as the launch customer for the 797!!

I live in Mukilteo, almost long walking distance from the Everett factory. I won't mention where I work, but I'm biased. I'd rather have seen the Giants logo on a 737-900ER.

Tilden's comments were made informally at a breakfast. I'm sure they'll make the best fleet choices going forward. AS is a well run airline. Hopefully, they'll conclude that returning to all-Boeing makes the best business sense.

The obsession over the comments made at a Seattle business leaders' breakfast is insane. But, even so, who cares if he has a preference for Boeing? Of course he is going to make the best decision for AS and its shareholders. All things being equal, he would pick Boeing; but to not be "thrilled" or otherwise upset over his comments is really taking it too far.

I disagree and frankly it made the news because he d i d say it, so obviously it was a comment that caught a lot of attention.
But read my entire post and you'll see I hope AS is the launch customer for the 797 in about 6 years.

mikegigs wrote:

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Ummm plain white tail? I hope they throw in either the Virgin logo or the Alaska Man on it. This looks very "naked".

Perhaps they will but the airline isn't sure yet (or isn't ready to announce) whether these aircraft will be integrated into the Alaska fleet in the next year or if it will be branded as Virgin? Because I agree, something should be on the tail.

Reading the linked press release at the start of the thread, it seems obvious that it should be branded as Alaska. All other SF Giants promotions mentioned for next year in that release specifically mention Alaska, they are naming a level of the stadium the "Alaska Airlines Club Level," etc. It would seem odd to muddy that sponsorship by branding the plane with a company name that is going away in a few years.

hOMSaR wrote:

mikegigs wrote:

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Ummm plain white tail? I hope they throw in either the Virgin logo or the Alaska Man on it. This looks very "naked".

Perhaps they will but the airline isn't sure yet (or isn't ready to announce) whether these aircraft will be integrated into the Alaska fleet in the next year or if it will be branded as Virgin? Because I agree, something should be on the tail.

Reading the linked press release at the start of the thread, it seems obvious that it should be branded as Alaska. All other SF Giants promotions mentioned for next year in that release specifically mention Alaska, they are naming a level of the stadium the "Alaska Airlines Club Level," etc. It would seem odd to muddy that sponsorship by branding the plane with a company name that is going away in a few years.

The brand will likely be gone by the time this plane rolls out of the paint shop, so it certainly will be Alaska, not Virgin

Hasn't AS already stated the Airbii will remain in the fleet into the 20's? I get the Seattle connection, but the world isn't going to end when Chester shows up on an Airbus.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

the world isn't going to end when Chester shows up on an Airbus.

It can't be that weird. He's already on Canadian and Brazilian planes, a European one isn't exactly stunning.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

The world isn't going to end when Chester shows up on an Airbus.

No, but at that point, Alaska needs to start removing the "PROUDLY ALL BOEING" painted under the cockpit of all their mainline planes.

Maybe replace it with "PROUDLY ALL MANUFACTURERS" since they will have Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier planes!

Should've picked a better year for the Giants to unveil this plane. They are by far the most disappointing team in the MLB this year and are in the running for the worst record in the league. Awkward.

peterj324 wrote:

Should've picked a better year for the Giants to unveil this plane. They are by far the most disappointing team in the MLB this year and are in the running for the worst record in the league. Awkward.

Weak livery for a weak team. This is a terrible special livery. And who leaves a tail blank!?

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

The world isn't going to end when Chester shows up on an Airbus.

No, but at that point, Alaska needs to start removing the "PROUDLY ALL BOEING" painted under the cockpit of all their mainline planes.

Maybe replace it with "PROUDLY ALL MANUFACTURERS" since they will have Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier planes!

That's OK. I recall pre-merger mania in the 90's and 00's, some of the majors stated they would buy A or B, but not both. That changed real fast when the mergers went down. I think its safe to say WN and probably NK (which I think will absorb F9) will be the only carriers that fly one manufacturer exclusively. G4 too, but they have their own unique marketing model. They'd probably take gently used 73G/H if they got a deal.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great paint scheme for my favorite baseball team. Too bad it's on the wrong kind of plane.

What the old saying? "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going "?

I thought I read someplace that AS was going back to an all Boeing fleet?

727200 wrote:

I thought I read someplace that AS was going back to an all Boeing fleet?

Their fleet plan has progressed over time more and more towards a mixed fleet indefinitely. The only comment about single fleet they have recently made is that if they were ever to go back to a single manufacturer fleet it would be Boeing only, but that isn't happening any time soon.

peterj324 wrote:

Should've picked a better year for the Giants to unveil this plane. They are by far the most disappointing team in the MLB this year and are in the running for the worst record in the league. Awkward.

I thought they were getting this plane in 2018...which is an even year, meaning the Giants will be quite good...

A bit strange to use the registration number for a VX A320 (which at one point did have the SF Giants logo on the engine) but use a mockup of an A321ceo with IAE engines.

Lack of tail graphic is pretty...meh, it kinda shows they're unsure whether they want to just say "we're Alaska and we're about to operate Airbus" or to maintain the VX brand like they said they would to 2019 (I know, cost of painting). When I saw it on their social media platforms earlier today I was already saddened by how there's apparently going to be a wordmark that says "Operated by Virgin America" by the door as the only bit of VX. Since it's arriving in 2018 and the combined AOC isn't expected until 2019 I think it's safe to say it won't be delivered as an AS plane even if AS is the one doing the announcing.

Polot wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

The aircraft will be operated by Virgin America for the time being. The intent may be to leave the branding a little vague, and then slip the aircraft into the shop for a weekend to put Charlie on the tail once the merger actually happens.

AS doesn't have to wait until VX's AOC is officially merged into AS's to paint Chester on the tail, they would just need "Operated by Virgin America" titles on the aircraft in the meantime until then. It looks like that is what is written forward of the boarding door.

Unless there is a union issue involved in adding Alaska name/tail might mean Alaska crews that are not trained yet. Anyone know if this would be an issue?

I imagine they didn't put AS branding on what is currently a VX aircraft without having a single operating certificate. That should be coming together before this A/C rolls out of the paint shop. Just my 2 cents.

NameOmitted wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Reading the linked press release at the start of the thread, it seems obvious that it should be branded as Alaska. All other SF Giants promotions mentioned for next year in that release specifically mention Alaska, they are naming a level of the stadium the "Alaska Airlines Club Level," etc. It would seem odd to muddy that sponsorship by branding the plane with a company name that is going away in a few years.

In that case you would have the brand muddied by having Chester on the tail with everything about the passenger experience being Virgin America.

They've already stated they have zero problem with a muddy passenger experience, and looking at their current offering it's not difficult to see why, because it's already quite inconsistent. They will be marketing flights as Alaska sold on Alaska's website and the first indication you're on a Virgin America flight will be when you show up at the gate and are greeted by a VX airbus.

rbavfan wrote:

Unless there is a union issue involved in adding Alaska name/tail might mean Alaska crews that are not trained yet. Anyone know if this would be an issue?

No issue. AA, DL and UA painted the former US, NW and CO planes very quickly and far before they were operating as one airline. I would expect to see Alaska branded airbus very soon, even before interiors are ripped out and downgraded to the Alaska spec. The crews won't mix until crew training is complete at the beginning of 2019 at the earliest, but that has no impact on brand changes in the meantime. Expect to see plenty of changes before then and I can imagine the VX brand will be all but gone this time next year. They want to erase it as quickly as possible.

airzona11 wrote:

Great paint scheme.

What scheme? It is literally an all-white plane with a giants logo and some bridge clip-art cut-and-pasted in the middle. With 10 minutes and a copy of MS Paint any middle-schooler could do as much. Why even bother to unveil this incomplete scheme without any sort of branding whatsoever? Another confusing move by a very disoriented AS marketing team that seems to have no idea how to handle the VX integration. They seem to be just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

Are they even painting this one? This could probably easily be done with vinyl.

I'm very partial to Boeing and grew up a mile from the Renton Boeing plant. However, I love the Giants-branded A321 -- Boeing made a huge mistake by not anticipating the need for a 757-sized jet right now. Yes, the ever-stretched 737 MAX may come close, but the A321 actually feels more comfortable with the wider seats. A 757 MAX-sized aircraft would have sold like gangbusters.

formeraa wrote:

I'm very partial to Boeing and grew up a mile from the Renton Boeing plant. However, I love the Giants-branded A321 -- Boeing made a huge mistake by not anticipating the need for a 757-sized jet right now. Yes, the ever-stretched 737 MAX may come close, but the A321 actually feels more comfortable with the wider seats. A 757 MAX-sized aircraft would have sold like gangbusters.

If seat width is a factor, then why would a 757 be any better than a 737?

hOMSaR wrote:

formeraa wrote:

I'm very partial to Boeing and grew up a mile from the Renton Boeing plant. However, I love the Giants-branded A321 -- Boeing made a huge mistake by not anticipating the need for a 757-sized jet right now. Yes, the ever-stretched 737 MAX may come close, but the A321 actually feels more comfortable with the wider seats. A 757 MAX-sized aircraft would have sold like gangbusters.

If seat width is a factor, then why would a 757 be any better than a 737?

This is also a big fallacy that Airbus has done a really good job of propagating. What is the A32x series like 6' wider than the 737 and not even in an area that really affects seat width?

I've flown both and find the 737-800/-900 to be just as comfortable.

Looks very nice. My only complaint is that the tail could use some colour.

BoeingGuy wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

formeraa wrote:

I'm very partial to Boeing and grew up a mile from the Renton Boeing plant. However, I love the Giants-branded A321 -- Boeing made a huge mistake by not anticipating the need for a 757-sized jet right now. Yes, the ever-stretched 737 MAX may come close, but the A321 actually feels more comfortable with the wider seats. A 757 MAX-sized aircraft would have sold like gangbusters.

If seat width is a factor, then why would a 757 be any better than a 737?

This is also a big fallacy that Airbus has done a really good job of propagating. What is the A32x series like 6' wider than the 737 and not even in an area that really affects seat width?

I've flown both and find the 737-800/-900 to be just as comfortable.

I love my Boeing but the seats when I ride B6 or DL Airbus are definitely about an inch wider and it is noticeable.