*** From the Archives ***
This article is from May 6, 2010, and is no longer current.
United and Continental Merge Logos (and Oh Yeah, Companies)
|
United and Continental Airlines recently announced a merger of the two companies. The new name is “United Airlines”. The new logo is this:
As you can see, while the first word in the name is still “United,” all other visual vestiges of United have disappeared.
What do you think of the new logo? Is it a successful mash-up, or just a mish-mash? Reply in the Comments.
For a bit of history on the design legacy of both companies, see Alissa Walker’s article “The New United-Continental Logo: Flying a Little Too Close Together.”
 |
meh
Yuck. I understand the drive to maintain some type of brand identity, but this would have been a great time to … well … bring a fresh idea to the table. I’ll bet they created it in a board room.
Man… whoever thought this was a good idea needs a new career. If the new carrier is to be called UNITED, then why change the logo? It just looks like a mistake.
The original UNITED logo is much more dynamic and well established. This new mishmash is more like some kind of political think tank. I’ve always liked the Continental ‘globe’ mark, but the typography just sits there.
Serifs shouldn’t be let anywhere near an airplane.
The United identity had much more impact and recognition than the bland-yet-busy mark of Continental.
Bad Decision. The original United logo is clean and remains contemporary. The typeface and graphic of the Continental logo have a nice blend for more traditional look, but I personally prefer the original United logo. Replacing the longer word “Continental” with the shorter word “United” truncates the design to a less streamlined and more “grounded” appearance than either of the originals.
Why don’t they just name the new morphed airline “Unitinental” while they’re at it, too.
It’s a lost opportunity. Keeping the name “United” was obvious, but keeping the old Continental logo look in whole ruins both for me. Perhaps there’s some sound reasoning in keeping as much of the known as possible, but why not at least change type (to something stronger), and color? This looks immediately dated, not a forward-looking company launching on a grand new venture. As previously noted, the flow of the logo gives it a much more static look. The only advantage I see is the significant amount of change to the United look over the years, but this doesn’t advance that history of change but subtracts from both. Change, especially in this industry, should update and modernize. One can only hope they take another shot at it within a couple years, if and when the merger is finally approved.
A boring solution, looks oldfashioned and is unexiting
United alone will do, it says everything
Boring. It took the designer all of 5 minutes to change Continental to United. I would have liked to see them tweak the continental logo and make it a little more exciting.
Why they opted to use Continental’s “plain Jane” logo is beyond me. Neither United nor Continental have an easily identifiable logo. Perhaps they went with Continental’s one-color logo to save money on paint, but they still could have done something new.