Re: United\'s New Livery!
[ QUOTE ]
Actually AA's cost of buffing an entire aircraft costs alot of money. As I understand it, they do it for the weight savings and the image that they have always carried.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please read the following. The middle paragraph is most important.
[ QUOTE ]
You have probably noticed that unlike other carriers, the exteriors of American’s aircraft are mostly unpainted. Way back in the 1930s, the leaders of this airline chose polishing over painting, and that decision produces benefits to this day. At that time, the Douglas DC-3 — developed specifically for American — was the workhorse of our fleet, and the original decision not to paint that aircraft was mostly about looks. While other carriers’ planes sported fancy, painted-on designs, American’s leaders preferred the elegant look of the DC-3’s unadorned aluminum skin.
The decision not to paint our fleet turned out to be a smart one, for reasons that go well beyond the cosmetic. For one thing, flying unpainted aircraft saves us a lot of money in fuel expense, since not adding paint makes an aircraft lighter — and lighter aircraft burn less fuel. On top of that, chipped or peeling paint can increase a plane’s wind resistance, reducing fuel efficiency. Because it takes less time to polish than to strip and repaint, the decision not to paint has also saved us a lot of labor and materials expense over the years. And since it is easier to find corrosion or dents when there is no paint covering an airplane’s surface, there is a safety benefit. Finally, polishing instead of painting is a good choice for the environment, because stripping paint can create a waste disposal problem.
Unfortunately, we cannot avoid paint altogether. We paint those parts of our airplanes that are made of composite materials, as well as areas particularly prone to corrosion. In these instances, we use coatings low in volatile organic compounds almost exclusively, so the paint is as environmentally friendly as possible.
[/ QUOTE ]