Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[nyxmike]

So I know they are building a new entrance road to Little Rock Rd/I-85 but are there any plans to upgrade the current one from Billy Graham Pkwy? It could use a little freshening up (landscaping, new signs, etc) and the Nascar themed sign painted on that concrete wall is kind of tacky... just sayin'

Edited January 3, 2013 by nyxmike

[tozmervo]

Didn't they just install a huge new sculpture at the Billy Graham interchange?

[Urbanity]

So I know they are building a new entrance road to Little Rock Rd/I-85 but are there any plans to upgrade the current one from Billy Graham Pkwy? It could use a little freshening up (landscaping, new signs, etc) and the Nascar themed sign painted on that concrete wall is kind of tacky... just sayin'

I'm sure entrances will be spruced up - after the priorities of expanding the terminals, building new parking decks, building the new terminals, etc are completed.

[southslider]

The biggest problem with the Airport Entrance Road is that it will only be built to Wilkinson Boulevard, failing to connect directly to Little Rock Road or I-85.  The State DOT is responsible for the remaining gap north of Wilkinson, and there are no plans to complete this final link anytime soon.

 

Similarly (but not as bad in my book), the City has funding to extend Fred D. Alexander Road to Little Rock Road.  However, there is likewise no funding or near-future plans to improve the remaining gap of rural, two-lane Little Rock Road between this new boulevard and Tuckaseegee Road, where Little Rock is already widened and has a higher-capacity SPUI interchange on I-85.

[dubone]

I think I like the idea that the airport is sort of forcing the hand of NCDOT more than just letting their portion sit on the books.   Just to Wilkinson will help make the path of the Sprinter and the cab routes to downtown using Wilkinson much more reasonable.  However, it is just plain ridiculous that the state is not instantaneously on board with their portion.

 

Perhaps McCrory could help, but it seems unlikely.  

[tozmervo]

Well, if US Airways and American are to be wed, I reckon they'll be adopting American's slick new look. https://plus.google.com/+AmericanAirlines/posts

[HopHead]

Well, if US Airways and American are to be wed, I reckon they'll be adopting American's slick new look. https://plus.google.com/+AmericanAirlines/posts

 

Looks like they hired the same graphic designer as Emirates Airlines: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1527&bih=747&tbm=isch&tbnid=9Ox6AhppudosXM:&imgrefurl=http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/3690/fsx-emirates-airlines-airbus-a340-313x/&docid=fmd23UzD-cK8uM&imgurl=http://flyawaysimulation.com/media/images1/images/emirates-airlines-airbus-A340-313X.jpg&w=1279&h=640&ei=bHb4UKaAGcrsqQGm7ICgAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=218&vpy=470&dur=1267&hovh=159&hovw=318&tx=199&ty=76&sig=102550660375783392035&page=2&tbnh=137&tbnw=274&start=27&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:28,s:0,i:242

[nonillogical]

Well, if US Airways and American are to be wed, I reckon they'll be adopting American's slick new look. https://plus.google.com/+AmericanAirlines/posts

Wow, I like it. As a graphic designer I really think that airlines are one of the few industries consistently doing good or at least sensible rebranding and applications. 

 

The Emirates treatment is only similar in the placement that 75% of all plane graphics (logically) follow...primary logo on the fuselage, logo mark/abstraction on the tail. With both brands being named after their countries of origin, I don't think the use of the flag counts as a trope or lack of creativity at all. 

 

/Sorry, I'll probably get set off any time a design or signage discussion gets brought up here. Don't mind me. 

[HopHead]

^Sorry, I forgot we had some of the creative folks on here

 

I don't think the design is unoriginal as much as I thought it screamed Emigrates Airlines when I saw it. Regardless it's way better than the current AA logo.

[ajfunder]

I personally prefer US Airways white paint scheme over the silver American airways paint scheme. Maybe they could combine this logo with the US airways paint scheme. As long as Charlotte stays a hub I will be happy.

Alex

[15895]

Ironic American Airlines is now flying a flag on the tail just like a certain based Tempe Arizona carrier does. Hopefully this isnt a foreshadow of things to come.

[tozmervo]

That's not a bad observation re: airline logos being generally strong. Most recent rebrandings that come to mind are either forgettable (Aol, EBay, Walmart) or really bad (see: Gap, JCPenney, Pepsi). I liked how United and Continental combined brands very nicely, and American did pretty well with this one. 

[15895]

That's not a bad observation re: airline logos being generally strong. Most recent rebrandings that come to mind are either forgettable (Aol, EBay, Walmart) or really bad (see: Gap, JCPenney, Pepsi). I liked how United and Continental combined brands very nicely, and American did pretty well with this one.

You needn't look any further than South Tryon for Forgettable rebranding; Duke Energy

[dubone]

I don't love the look but I'm sure it will grow on me, BUT it is vastly better than the Alcoholics Anonymous with the scissors that they have had forever. 

 

I just somewhat wish it was less patriotic.  Somehow these americana themes are become trite.   United was smart to pic the global logo of Continental, and move to transcend nationalism.  Instead of United = United States, it appears more like United globe.   Obviously US Airways is more US-centric with the stripy flag logo, but it is subdued in its color scheme, so seem less kitschy.  Delta, obviously has no nationalism in branding other than the red, white, and blue color scheme. 

 

I guess American has always had the eagle, and obviously has America in its name, but I still don't know why they had to go so far out on it.   But like I said, they could only get better with how terrible their old branding was.   

 

[Urbanity]

I really like the new logo a lot.   Would love to see that throughout CLT!

[Miesian Corners]

In the airline world, it's gotten overwhelmingly bad reviews.  There's even a facebook page of AA folks who want the tail changed.  FutureBrands is the firm responsible.

[nonillogical]

In the airline world, it's gotten overwhelmingly bad reviews.  There's even a facebook page of AA folks who want the tail changed.  FutureBrands is the firm responsible.

Yes and this is the kind of ridiculous public bullying that almost every major company's redesign has been met with over the last few years. This is why most companies are now terrified of changing their visual brand even if its terrible (AA's was iconic, designed by one of the century's greatest designers, but it was still in dire need of an update), and this is why designers are kept on a short leash, since some companies unfortunately DO think a public kneejerk reaction trumps all the training and expertise of the design firm they've hired. Remember a year or two ago when Starbucks dropped their name and just used their icon? People freaked out. Nobody remembers why they were freaking out anymore though. See also: Pepsi, London 2012, Comedy Central, Microsoft, JCPennys, Twitter, DC Comics, etc. 

 

I don't think this is a perfect redesign and while I love the icon/mark, the type is pretty bad and the tail clashes a bit. However I hate to think how screwed my profession would be if the angry, change-fearing public gets to throw a tantrum and make demands every time they don't instantly fall in love with a logo.  

[Miesian Corners]

London 2012 will go down in history as the worst logo ever created.  Gap relented and went back to it's old logo due to public outcry.  British Airways also dumped its rebranding in the 1990s and again placed the Union Jack on its aircraft.  The (1997) US Airways livery was lauded as one of the best corporate rebrandings in recent memory.  

Regardless, that tail has WAAAY too much going on.  It looks like a Tommy Hilfiger shirt from 1989.   

[nonillogical]

^ The London 2012 brand wasn't just the logo. When I first saw that logo out of context I hated it too, but when the whole package came together during the olympics, I thought it worked. Gap's logo redesign was probably my most hated of all time, but I still don't think they should have caved and reverted back. If anything they should have treated it as an interim logo and gone back to the drawing board with a different agency when they were ready. 

 

Point is, there is almost always an outcry when a large company rebrands, and its not usually due to objective analysis of the merits of the design or its appropriateness to the brand, its usually simply because its not what they're used to. The public should feel free to critique the new work or lament the loss of the old, but shouldn't expect to be able to get on Twitter/FB and undo or ruin the hard work of a team of professionals every time their personal tastes aren't hit on the nose. The frustrating thing about logo/brand work is that the average person always thinks they have something better in their head, doesn't realize how complex a process it is, and maybe most significantly, doesn't think about how many different options and concepts were likely presented, with the client choosing the final one they're looking at.

 

/rant over. sorry for the tangent

Edited January 21, 2013 by nonillogical

[tozmervo]

^ I think your argument is well demonstrated by the various "public meeting" scenes in Parks + Rec, which are astonishingly close to what public feedback is like in reality. 

[jednc]

^ The London 2012 brand wasn't just the logo. When I first saw that logo out of context I hated it too, but when the whole package came together during the olympics, I thought it worked. Gap's logo redesign was probably my most hated of all time, but I still don't think they should have caved and reverted back. If anything they should have treated it as an interim logo and gone back to the drawing board with a different agency when they were ready. 

 

Point is, there is almost always an outcry when a large company rebrands, and its not usually due to objective analysis of the merits of the design or its appropriateness to the brand, its usually simply because its not what they're used to. The public should feel free to critique the new work or lament the loss of the old, but shouldn't expect to be able to get on Twitter/FB and undo or ruin the hard work of a team of professionals every time their personal tastes aren't hit on the nose. The frustrating thing about logo/brand work is that the average person always thinks they have something better in their head, doesn't realize how complex a process it is, and maybe most significantly, doesn't think about how many different options and concepts were likely presented, with the client choosing the final one they're looking at.

 

/rant over. sorry for the tangent

I couldn't agree with you more. I think public input on most things is over rated. The only people who choose to participate are the ones who are upset. Complainers with the loudest voices always get more attention than they deserve.

[Miesian Corners]

This is getting wAAy off topic, so I'll apologize in advance.  So what you're saying is that none of us should have an opinion?  Designers know best.  I guess I'll stop going to design charrettes.  

[nonillogical]

Not at all. Everyone is free to voice their opinion on a public-facing brand. Hell, we designers disagree PLENTY, and this AA rebrand is no exception as there is plenty to like and plenty to critique.

 

What I have beef with is the expectation of some people that their ability to gather a group with a negative opinion should trump the expertise, research and talent of the designers and the wishes of the client. Its kind of a recent trend that has come about in the age of social media to protest or boycott redesigns, and its having a negative belittling effect on the design profession. That's why I cite the Gap case as a bad precedent even though I hated the logo as much as everyone else. Even the best redesigns replacing dated or terrible logos are met with outrage these days and I think its getting ridiculous.

[Urbanity]

Ok - This next sentence makes my head spin, but...

 

The Charlotte Observer reporting that the Dallas Morning News reported that an analyst with an aviation group in Colorado said (   ) that Dallas Forth Worth would benefit over Charlotte, Miami , Phoenix and Philadelphia for flights of the new merged AA-US

 

Part of it makes sense that Dallas (as the headquarters city) would grow, but I'm not so certain that the connecting traffic would in Charlotte would be that affected.  I would perceive Phoenix as being more vulnerable than Charlotte due to proximity to Dallas, but that's just my guess.

 

If anyone wants the original article:  http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/mitchell-schnurman/20130121-mitchell-schnurman-a-bigger-american-airlines-is-better-for-dfw-airport.ece

Edited January 22, 2013 by Urbanity

[carolinagarnet]

I am not familiar with US Airway's relationship with Phoenix prior to its HQ moving there, but I get the sense that the company is not particularly rooted to the Phoenix community. I've always felt that Phoenix and Philly would be casualties of the merger, given their location to American hubs. Charlotte is far enough away from NYC and Miami that it really does not cannibalize business for either as a connection point and serves as a nice competitor to Delta's Atlanta hub. That said, it is not geographically as close to Europe as NYC or South America as Miami and Dallas to become a preferred international hub.

 

The American terminal at Miami is beautiful, but I wonder if it makes sense to have two Latin American/South American hubs in Miami and Dallas to serve the east and west sides of the continent, respectively. I guess promoting Dallas to a superhub assumes that it is more cost effective to route most connecting flights to the center of the country before branching out to the destination city. I'm sure it depends on current flight volume coupled with projected growth of the Hispanic population throughout the country.