An empirical investigation into the changing visual identity of full service and low cost carriers, 2000 vs. 2012

Abstract

This paper reports on the findings of a semiotic content analysis of the visual branding of over 630 airline tail fins as they appeared in 2000 and 2012. Unlike existing studies of airlines’ visual identities that rely on a snap shot in time and examine all airlines, this paper focuses on changes that have occurred in the visual branding of full-service carriers (FSCs) and low cost carriers (LCCs) between 2000 and 2012. The results confirm that there have been significant changes in the visual content of FSC and LCC tail fins and the way in which these airlines portray non-price competitive characteristics. The research shows that while an increasing number of LCCs now use aircraft tail fins to display their corporate name, FSCs are increasingly employing icons of nationhood. This suggests that while LCCs are trying to appeal to a wide passenger demographic who value low fares over service, FSCs are responding to the competitive threat by explicitly drawing on the cultural rhetoric of symbols of sovereign national identity to differentiate themselves in an increasingly competitive market.

Full text

JAIRM, 2013 – 3(1), 1-17 Online ISSN: 2014-4806 – Print ISSN: 2014-4865
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jairm.16
An empirical investigation into the changing visual identity of full service
and low cost carriers, 2000 vs. 2012
Adam Taylor, David Pitfield, Lucy Budd
Transport Studies Group, Loughborough University (United Kingdom)
D.E.Pitfield@lboro.ac.uk, L.C.S.Budd@lboro.ac.uk
Received February, 2013
Accepted August, 2013
Abstract
Purpose:
This paper reports on the findings of an analysis of the visual branding of over 630 airline tail fins as they appeared
in 2000 and 2012.
Design/methodology:
Unlike existing studies of airlines’ visual identities that rely on a snap shot in time and examine all airlines,
this paper focuses on changes that have occurred in the visual branding of full-service carriers (FSCs) and low cost carriers
(LCCs) between 2000 and 2012 using a semiotic content analysis.
Findings:
The results confirm that there have been significant changes in the visual content of FSC and LCC tail fins and the
way in which these airlines portray non-price competitive characteristics. The research shows that while an increasing
number of LCCs now use aircraft tail fins to display their corporate name, FSCs are increasingly employing icons of
nationhood. This suggests that while LCCs are trying to appeal to a wide passenger demographic who value low fares over
service, FSCs are responding to the competitive threat by explicitly drawing on the cultural rhetoric of symbols of sovereign
national identity to differentiate themselves in an increasingly competitive market.
Originality/value:
This paper builds on previous analyses of this type focusing on temporal comparisons and suggesting
differing strategies adopted by LCCs and FSCs.
Keywords:
airlines, visual identity, branding
-1-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
1. Introduction
Airline liveries have long been a subject of interest and debate among graphic designers,
passengers, and academics. The often colourful paint schemes, decals, and logos that are
applied to the fuselage, tail fin and wing tips of aircraft are not only designed to project,
through strategically significant combinations of colours, typefaces, and visual motifs, the core
brand values of the airline and visually differentiate its aircraft from those of its competitors,
but also to protect the airframe from corrosion and reduce the friction that is generated when
an aircraft is flying (thereby lowering fuel burn, fuel costs, and emissions).
In an era of intense competition, decreasing margins, and global economic downturn, a strong
brand and positive corporate identity are vital components of airlines’ corporate strategy.
Commercial airlines collectively spend millions of US Dollars every year on refining and
refreshing their visual identities and ensuring that they select appropriate combinations of
colours, fonts, and visual motifs that project and reinforce the airline’s core brand values.
The deregulation of the US airline industry in 1978 and the progressive liberalisation of other
world aviation markets from the mid-1990s onwards have enabled new airlines to enter the
marketplace and engage in competition and compete on price with the incumbent full-service
(and often flag-carrying) operators. However, price competition alone is insufficient to create
and retain new business and, more than ever before, airlines are using their brands as major
competitive weapons. Through a semiotic analysis of the visual content of over 630 airline tail
fins, this paper identifies the key similarities and differences in the visual identities of low cost
and full service operators in 2000 and 2012. The paper begins with a review of the literatures
relating to branding and airline visual identity before the data collection methods are
described, the findings presented, and the implications of the results for practices of airline
brand management considered.
2. Brand identities
Shaw (2007, p.227) defines a brand as “any situation where customers perceive significant
differences in the products of competing suppliers”. In a capitalist consumer society, brands
are powerful tools that influence public perceptions, investment and, most importantly in the
context of this paper, consumer buying behaviour (Balmer, 2003). Brands aim to create a
unique identity and position for a company’s products and/or services in order to distinguish
them from those of its competitors and encourage customers to purchase them in preference
to rival offerings.
While branding is important to all economic sectors, it is particularly vital for service industries
who need to create distinctive brand values and consumer appeal in what is often a crowded
-2-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
marketplace (Berry, 2000). In the case of tangible consumer goods, it is possible for the
customer to quality check the product before purchase by, for example test driving a vehicle,
trying on a pair of shoes or visually assessing the ripeness of fruit. However service
companies, including restaurants and transportation companies, cannot package or display
their goods or services in the same way prior to purchase. These companies, therefore, have
to generate a desire among potential customers to consume their particular gastronomic or
travel experience over that of their competitors by helping them to visualise and appreciate the
value of the intangible factors associated with the service offered (Chen & Chang, 2008). Yoo
and Donthu (2001) similarly suggest that a strong brand is vital to the success of service
companies as it can significantly influence a company's profits, cash flow and consumer
purchasing behaviour.
Airlines are one example of companies who rely on brands to sell their services. As Budd
(2012) explains, airlines sell not only the safe (and hopefully reliable) transportation of
passengers and goods from A to B, they also provide travel experiences, international
communications and logistics. The 'experience' that an airline offers to its customers thus
encompasses not only tangible attributes, such as seat comfort, seat pitch, in-flight
entertainment, and on-board catering, but also a number of intangible aspects including (but
not limited to) the perceived social status of the brand, the friendliness of airline staff and the
general ambience and corporate social responsibilities and values of the company.
While the tangible attributes of a brand can often be quickly matched by competitors, Shaw
(2007, p.228) suggests that strong brands are dependent on the ‘psychological brand values,
which cannot be quickly matched by rivals’. Some of these brand values include personal
aspirations, pride and the perceived social status of the individual concerned and may influence
a traveller to fly with one carrier in preference to another. On the other hand, if travellers
prioritise value and convenience, they may choose to fly with a low cost operator. These
psychological brand values are best expressed through the 'brand image', which Keller (1993,
p.3) defines as ‘the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations in a
consumer’s memory’.
As Brodie, Whittome and Brush (2009, p.347) have shown, brand association expresses the
emotional perceptions a consumer attaches to a particular brand, as well as the ‘symbolic
meanings attached to specific attributes of the product or service’. Brand association is,
therefore, vital to the profitability of any company and marketing executives routinely employ
it to position, extend and differentiate brands. If done well, this process creates positive
attitudes and feelings toward the brand among employees, consumers and shareholders
(Aaker 1991). However, building a strong brand requires time, effort, and planning. The
-3-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
rewards associated with building a strong brand, however, can be invaluable. Customers may
choose a product or service based on the brand name alone and prior experience or cultural
perception of a brand influences future purchasing behaviour (Berry, 2000). Such 'brand
equity', or ‘the incremental utility or value added to a product from its brand name’ (Chen &
Chang, 2008, p.40) is particularly important for airlines. For example, a customer may wish to
fly with Airline A, purely because they are familiar, loyal and comfortable with the brand and
feel at ease when paying for the intangible service that cannot be quality checked prior to
purchase. Positive brand equity such as this can bring a wealth of business to the company in
the form of new and repeat custom, as well as increased brand awareness. However, brand
equity can also be negative, particularly if a brand becomes associated with poor customer
service, industrial unrest, or a fatal accident.
The majority of airlines, like other service companies, strive to create a strong brand by
utilising psychological and emotional values to create positive brand equity. But this is no easy
task. Berry (2000 p.129) believes that ‘Brand meaning’ (defined as ‘the customer’s dominant
perceptions of the brand. It is the customer’s snapshot impression of the brand and its
associations’) and ‘Brand Awareness’ can both positively and negatively contribute to Brand
Equity. Berry (2000) furthermore suggests that communications influence brand meaning for
customers who have little or no prior experience of the company. These communications,
whether through television, social media, word-of-mouth, livery, logos or advertisements, help
shape a customer’s impression of the brand.
Brand awareness is largely influenced by the visual cues (such as a logo) that a company
displays to the public. A logo can take the form of an emblem, a graphic mark, a company
name or any other shape, picture, colour or font that is uniquely associated with a company
and which, in turn, impacts on brand knowledge, meaning, awareness and equity (Keller,
2003). The brand logo is notably the most common instrument used to gain attention,
recognition and differentiation and is arguably the most important element of a company’s
brand (Buttle & Westoby, 2006).
3. Airline Brands
One of the most familiar expressions of an airline’s brand is the livery that is painted on its
aircraft. Thurlow and Aiello’s (2007) analysis of 561 airline tail fins discovered that all featured
at least one of five categories of icon - flight (e.g. birds, wings, and aircraft), space and
distance (globes, stars, clouds, planets), direction (e.g. arrows, darts), speed (e.g. diagonal
lines and stripes to indicate movement through the air), and motion (such as spirals, waves,
and ripple effects). A sixth category of icons of nationhood was added by Budd (2012). These
icons of nationhood include flags (for example, British Airways), native flora (Aer Lingus’
-4-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
Shamrock and MEA’s Cedar of Lebanon), indigenous fauna (Qantas’ kangaroo and Tuniair’s
Gazelle), local cultures (Alaska Airlines’ face), and national culture. Egyptair, for example,
employ an image of the ancient Egyptian sun God, Horus.
In many cases, Thurlow and Aiello note that more than one category of icon is employed. A
notable example of a polysemous airline livery is Lufthansa’s stylised flying crane set against a
sun on blue background representing distance and space. Budd (2012, p.1) suggests that an
airline’s livery and tail fin design not only aim to portray the airline’s values but is increasingly
used as a competitive weapon to ‘visually differentiate carriers from their competitors and seek
to influence in consumer perceptions of airline brands by promoting the notion that a particular
carrier is safe, reliable, sophisticated, innovative, or fun’.
4. Method
In order to compare the differences in airline tail fin designs between Full Service Carriers and
Low Cost Carriers over time, a semiotic content analysis (similar to that performed by Thurlow
& Aiello in 2007) was conducted using the full-colour photographs published in two airline
enthusiasts’ books - Hengi’s Airline Tail Colours (published in 2000) and Manning’s Airline Tail
Colours (published in 2012). Each book contains approximately 580 images of airline tail fins.
Information on the principal type of operation (full-service, charter, low cost or cargo) of the
1098 airlines depicted in both books was obtained from the written descriptions that
accompanied each image. Where this information was ambiguous or absent, internet searches
were undertaken to establish the airline’s principal operating model.
In this way, 257 FSCs and 75 LCCs (332 in total) were identified from Hengi’s (2000) Airline
Tail Colours and 212 FSCs and 92 LCCs (304 in total) were identified from Manning’s (2012)
Airline Tail Colours (see Table 1 overleaf). Interestingly, the proportion of FSCs fell from 46.8%
of all airlines in 2000 to 38.8% in 2012 while LCCs increased from 13.7% to 16.8%, indicating
the relative growth in the LCC sector following liberalisation and the contraction and
consolidation (through mergers and acquisitions) of the FSC sector. The proportion of other
airlines, including charter, regional airlines, and cargo operators (which were not considered as
part of this research), remained relatively consistent.
A semiotic content analysis of the content of each FSC and LCC tail fin that was identified was
performed for the year 2000 and the year 2012. Up to 60 individual pieces of information were
recorded for each airline including the number of shades and different colours used on the tail
fin as well as the nature of the visual motifs that were displayed. This resulted in a 41,000-cell
dataset that contained information on 636 airline liveries. Owing to the dynamic nature of the
airline industry, not all the airlines that were flying in 2000 were still operating in 2012 and a
-5-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
number of new airlines had entered the marketplace after 2000. Although this renders direct
visual comparisons between all individual airline’s liveries in 2000 and 2012 impossible (only a
small number of FSCs and very few LCCs were operating in both 2000 and 2012) the research
nevertheless offers a valuable insight into the dominant liveries and the similarities and
differences in the visual identities that FSCs and LCCs used in the two years in question.
Source
Carrier Type Hengi (2000) Manning (2012)
Total Percentage Total Percentage
Full Service Carrier 257 46.8% 212 38.8%
Low cost carrier 75 13.7% 92 16.8%
Charter 77 14.0% 80 14.6%
Cargo 55 10.0% 59 10.8%
Government/Private 10 1.8% 16 2.9%
Regional/Commuter 57 10.4% 65 11.9%
Franchise 10 1.8% 13 2.4%
Subs 8 1.5% 10 1.8%
Total 549 100% 547 100%
Table 1. Number and proportion of airline types by year/source.
5. Results
The findings of empirical content analysis yielded a number of interesting insights into the
similarities and differences in the visual composition of FSC and LCC identities and the extent
to which they changed between 2000 and 2012. Table 2 summarises the key findings.
For both FSCs and LCCs, white, blue, and red were by far the most popular colour combination
in 2000 and 2012. White was the most popular base (or background) fuselage colour for FSCs
in both 2000 and 2012 and it was also the most popular colour for LCCs in 2000. However,
blue replaced white as the most popular background colour for LCCs in 2012. In general,
orange, yellow, purple and pink proved to be popular colours for LCCs, with the use of orange,
in particular, growing markedly in popularity between 2000 and 2012. These ‘fresh’ colours,
contrasted with the more conventional colours and shades adopted by FSCs. Interestingly, a
number of colours, including brown, black, and green were used by very few airlines of either
business model. On average, the tailfins of FSCs utilised more colours and shades than those
of LCCs and, over the 12 year period, the average numbers of colours used by LCCs has
declined.
In terms of icons and visual motifs, FSC liveries featured between two and four individual icons
while those of LCCs were simpler and generally featured only one or two designs. A trend
-6-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
towards simplification in LCC liveries was noted between 2000 and 2012. The classification
system proposed by Thurlow and Aiello (2007) is used to structure the following sections.
Attribute Low Cost Carriers Full Service Carriers
Use of unconventional
colours More common Less common
Average number of
colours used
Fewer colours used (Average of
2.5 in 2012)
More colours used (Average of 3 in
2012)
Average number of
icons
- Lower than FSCs
- Number decreased 2000-2012
- Average 1.6 in 2012
More than LCCs
- Number remained stable 2000-
2012
- Average 2.3 in 2012
Name used as an icon - More important
- Use increased 2000-2012
- Less important
- Use decreased 2000-2012
Icons of Nationhood - Less important
- Use decreased 2000-2012
- More important
- Use increased 2000-2012
Icons of Flight - Less important
- Use decreased 2000-2012
- More important
- 4 times more common in 2012
than 2000
Icons of Directionality
and Motion Use decreased 2000-2012 Use increased 2000-2012
Table 2. Key differences in visual composition of LCC and FSC tail fins.
Tail fins that featured the airline’s name were the most popular icon used by LCCs for both
periods studied. The number of FSCs featuring their name on the tail fin dropped by 5% from
2000 to 2012 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Changing frequency of name, 2000 vs. 2012
Unsurprisingly, icons of nationhood were the most popular design for FSCs in both years. In
2000, a third of LCCs and 55.6% of FSCs featured an icon of nationhood but by 2012 only
30.4% of LCCs did (Figure 2).
-7-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
Figure 2. Changing frequency of icons of nationhood, 2000 vs. 2012
Icons of speed were popular with both FSCs and LCCs in both 2000 and 2012. Speed icons
were the second most popular motif category for FSCs in both years studied and the third and
second most popular for LCCs in 2000 and 2012 respectively. Both LCCs and FSCs increased
the frequency that icons of speed were used, but 10% more FSCs utilise this element than
LCCs (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Changing frequency of icons of speed, 2000 vs. 2012
Icons of flight were a popular choice for FSCs with 42% having a bird, aircraft or wings
somewhere on the tail fin in 2000 making it the third most popular icon. This was compared to
18.7% of LCCs in 2000 placing it as the fifth most popular icon (Figure 4). The frequency that
icons of flight were used declined over the 12-year time period with LCCs dropping at a faster
rate. Despite this, icons of flight remained as the fifth most popular element in 2012 for LCCs,
and the third most popular for FSCs.
-8-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
Figure 4. Changing frequency of flight icons, 2000 vs. 2012
Icons of distance and space was the fourth most popular icon for both carriers across both
years studied, with FSCs around 10% more likely to use a globe, sun, star, planet or cloud
somewhere on the tail fin. From the period 2000 to 2012, both carrier types increased the
frequency with which this motif was used (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Changing frequency of distance and space icons, 2000 vs. 2012
Icons of directionality had similar frequencies for both FSCs and LCCs in 2000 at around 15%.
Over time, however, FSCs increased the use of arrows and wake lines causing over 20% to
show some evidence of directionality (Figure 6). In contrast, LCCs decreased the frequency of
arrows and wake lines to 11%.
Figure 6. Changing frequency of directionality icons, 2000 vs. 2012
-9-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
Icons of Motion remained the least popular motif for both carriers across both years. Across
the two periods, however, FSCs increased the frequency of spirals or ripples by 3%, compared
to a decrease in frequency of 6% by LCCs (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Changing frequency of icons of motion, 2000 vs. 2012
Having the airline’s name appearing in full or as an acronym on the tail was the most popular
individual motif for LCCs in 2000 (over 21% of operators utilised their name this way). In
contrast, it was only the 4th most popular motif for FSCs in 2000. At the time, the use of
acronyms was more popular than using the airline’s full name, but this has changed
considerably for LCCs with full names becoming over twice as popular as acronyms in 2012.
Consequently, the use of the full name by LCCs went from third most popular visual motif in
2000 to the most popular in 2012. FSCs, however, have decreased the frequency that
acronyms and the full name are used (Figures 8 and 9). For both types of carrier, the use of
acronyms has dropped considerably over time, and in 2012 it became the fourth most popular
visual motif for LCCs, favouring full names instead. The use of acronyms for FSCs dropped two
places to become the sixth most popular. Despite this, however, FSCs now utilise acronyms
more than LCCs in 2012.
Figures 8 and 9. Changing frequency of tail fins with name in full (left) and with name as an acronym
(right)
Birds were one of the most popular visual motifs for FSCs across both years studied, although
the number of bird motifs as a proportion of the total fell for both types of airline (from 28.8%
-10-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
to 24.5% for FSCs and from 12% to 8.7% for LCCs). Images of wings and aircraft on tail fins
proved to be an unpopular visual motif amongst all the airlines studied.
National colours were a popular visual motif with FSCs, placed fifth most popular in 2000 and
third most popular in 2012 with nearly a fifth of all FSCs showing evidence of national colours.
LCCs did not utilise national colours nearly as frequently. Cultural artefacts were actually a
more popular choice for LCCs in 2000 with it being the eighth most popular visual motif and
the most popular icon of nationhood but have since halved in use. National colours are now the
most popular icon of nationhood for LCCs. Fauna was also a relatively popular choice for both
carriers (second most popular icon of nationhood), appearing in the top 10 for LCCs and FSCs
in 2012. Flags were relatively popular in 2000, appearing tenth for LCCs and ninth for FSCs,
but have since decreased in frequency due to fauna increasing in popularity. Flora, mythical
creatures and people were not a popular choice amongst either FSCs or LCCs in either year.
For LCCs, suns were the most popular icon of distance and space over both time periods; with
the carrier type increasing its frequency from 2000 to 2012. As such, the visual motif rose
from the sixth most popular item to the fifth in 2012. This was in contrast with FSCs whose
most popular icon of distance and space was the globe, used in nearly a fifth of Full Service
airlines studied in both years. Despite the popularity, FSCs reduced the use of globes over time
and saw it fall from third most popular visual motif to fourth. This may be partly due to the
increased use of suns, which entered the top ten visual motifs in 2012 at ninth place. In
contrast to FSCs, LCCs increased the use of globes from 2000 to 2012 proving them to be the
seventh most popular item. The use of stars, planets and clouds proved relatively unpopular
throughout the study. However, it should be noted that clouds were not recorded at all in 2000
but have since seen over a handful of carriers utilise this type of visual motif in 2012. Spirals
and ripples were not a popular choice for either type of carrier. Spirals were the ninth most
popular visual motif in 2000 for LCCs, however they have since dropped in frequency in favour
for icons of speed. Over the two time periods studied, spirals have more than doubled in
frequency for FSCs, although numbers still remain relatively low. Ripples have proved to be an
unpopular choice for all airlines across both years.
Across both years, arrows were a more popular visual motif with FSCs. In 2012, they were the
fifth most popular visual motif, rising from sixth place. Still popular with LCCs, but contrasting
to FSCs, arrows decreased in frequency in 2012 falling to the eighth most popular from fifth
place. Wake lines were generally unpopular throughout the study for all airlines.
6. Discussion
The evidence collected shows that over the past 12 years competitive pressures on FSCs and
Low Cost Carriers LCCs have caused some significant changes in the visual branding of the two
-11-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
types of carrier. The decade prior to 2012 has been one of the most turbulent in aviation
history. Airlines have had to re-align their business models to ensure survival; some have had
to take more drastic measures such as file for bankruptcy, whilst others have had to cease
operations altogether. The changing nature of FSCs and LCCs as two industries in their own
right has, therefore, seen some notable changes in the way that each carrier type visually
brands itself.
The evidence collected on the increased use of bright and unconventional colours amongst
LCCs supports Budd’s theory (2012, p.5) that “the choice of unconventional colours possibly
reflects LCCs’ aim of creating unique and distinctive visual identities in a crowded market that
convey and reinforce the notion that these airlines are new and innovative”.
Many colours hold values subconscious to the human mind that airlines utilise to their
advantage. Over the years, evidence suggests that they are decreasing the use of some
colours possibly because of the subconscious emotional values they hold. The increased use of
in red for example, particularly amongst LCCs, may have emerged due to the brand values
that can be associated with the colour. For example, happiness, power, dominance and love are
commonly associated with red and could be used as a subconscious non-competitive visual
motif that would differentiate some airlines from others. In reverse to this, the decreased use
of blue (again, particularly for LCCs) may also be attributed to the brand values associated
with blue. For example, the notion of feeling blue is associated with sadness. In German, to
‘feel’ blue is to ‘feel’ drunk. Blue, in general, is also associated with the feeling of coldness.
Interestingly, the use of yellow for LCCs has decreased dramatically by half, maybe due to the
colour being associated with caution and cowardice.
Disregarding any emotional values associated with colours, however, the progressive decrease
in use of yellow and blue amongst LCCs may be due to the decreased use in icons of
nationhood, particularly flags and national colours. Governments globally are increasingly
granting cabotage, which gives airlines the freedom to operate commercial services between
two points within foreign states. LCCs are using cabotage as a competitive advantage to
further increase global market share. Consequently, new and existing LCCs are increasingly
disassociating their brands to the country they originate from. EasyJet, Air Asia, Germanwings
and Air Baltic are all notable examples of where icons of nationhood are not used. In fact,
amongst the Low Cost sector the airline’s name has proved to be an increasingly important
brand value in its own right.
LCCs have utilised their name on their tail fins more than ever before due to the increased
brand equity they can bring. The research agrees with Chen and Chang (2008) and Berry
(2000) that the name of the company can serve as a powerful competitive weapon. Having the
-12-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
airline’s name displayed on a LCC was the most popular icon amongst all those studied in 2000
and 2012, agreeing with Budd’s (2012) research. In sum, LCCs increasingly take advantage of
the name of their airline by displaying it on their tail fin due to the positive brand equity that it
can bring. This is not true for FSCs, however, as they prefer to use icons of nationhood as a
way of increasing their competitive advantage. This can be seen in British Airways’ recent
branding campaign that plays on the airline’s heritage and its Britishness by displaying the
Chatham dockyard flag on the tail fin, or Hawaiian Airline’s stylised Pualani symbolising
hospitality, tranquillity and exoticness.
As FSCs tend to be older than their Low Cost incumbents, evidence shows that their visual
branding increasingly uses history, experience and nationhood arguably as a way of
differentiating themselves from their Low Cost rivals. Therefore, icons of nationhood are not
decreasing for both carriers, as expected. In 1997, British Airways famously re-branded their
tail fins with images from different countries around the globe: Egyptian wall hangings, Native
American wood carvings and Japanese calligraphy were all notable examples. The re-branding
was controversial with many complaining about the new designs. Thurlow and Aiello (2007)
suggest that many people, regardless of nationality, liked flying British Airways because it was
British. Many other airlines also learned a lesson here and discovered that people liked flying
with them because of the respective nationality they had.
Interestingly, the simplistic nature of Low cost carriers’ business models, as described by
O’Connell and Williams (2005), could arguably be reflected in the design of their tail fins. The
amount of colours used, for example, is considerably less on average in LCCs compared to
FSCs, and has continued to decrease (or simplify) over the years as the Low Cost business
models also become simpler. The average amount of icons used is also considerably less than
that of Full Service rivals, decreasing over the years. The ‘hassle free’, simple fare system that
low cost operators have adopted and adapted over the years have, therefore, arguably been
reflected in simplification of tail fin design. This may be attributed to the decrease in icons of
directionality, motion, flight and nationhood. Despite these icons decreasing in frequency, (but
still remaining a popular choice of many carriers) the research suggests that icons of speed is
an increasingly important fundamental visual brand characteristic found in many LCCs and, as
of 2012, the second most popular icon after the name. Many LCCs did, in fact, often show the
name of the airline along with an icon of speed (such as a stripe or wave). It can, therefore, be
suggested that in many cases, icons of speed (which can represent convenience, promptness
and simplicity) replace directionality, motion and, in some cases, flight and nationhood. Again,
this represents the simplistic nature of Low cost carriers’ business model in getting customers
from A-B in the simplest, cheapest and most convenient way possible. Full Service Carriers, on
the other hand, show increases in the use of directionality and motion whilst keeping icons of
-13-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
flight at a frequency four times as popular as LCCs in 2012. This further suggests that FSCs
are continuing to hold on to their heritage, expertise of flight and direction as a competitive
brand value.
There were many areas where both industries showed similarities in visual branding which may
represent the changing behavioural patterns of the air traveller in general. The research
suggests that for both types of carrier, icons of speed in visual airline branding are of growing
popularity and importance. Literature confirms that airlines are increasingly adopting
innovative advertising strategies and business approaches in an effort make the overall travel
time reduce as much as possible. This may include flying to convenient, central airports, to the
ability to check in online and priority boarding. Consequently, icons of speed have increased
amongst both types of carrier and icons of flight (although still a popular choice, particularly
for FSCs) have reduced. This is attributed to the increased use of waves for both LCCs and
FSCs, possibly due to the attractiveness of the softer shape of a wave compared to the
harshness of a straight line for stripes. Birds, however, have decreased amongst all types of
carriers, but still remain popular. It confirms, and adds to, the literature that suggests core
advertising strategies for speed, convenience and comfort are now being reflected in the visual
branding of airlines, and not so much the art of flying. It suggests that as the industry has
evolved, the needs and wants of the general air traveller have changed, perhaps from an
exciting, unique and pleasurable flight experience, to a speedy, comfortable, point-to-point
transport service.
This study challenges Thurlow and Aiello’s (2007) research that suggests each airline has at
least one of five visual icons of their tail fin: Icons of Distance and Space, Directionality,
Speed, Motion and Flight. For the two time periods studied, there were 49 airlines in 2000 and
48 in 2012 that showed no signs of the icons described by Thurlow and Aiello (2007). Once
icons of Nationhood were added, as suggested by Budd (2012), there were still a number of
airlines that did not fall into any category. As explained previously in the methodology, and due
to the increasing importance placed on brand equity within the services’ industry, as well as
the simplistic nature that many airline business models adopt in recent times, it was thought
the ‘Name’ be added as a final category. Indeed, once ‘Name’ was added to the previous 6
icons, each airline studied fell into at least one category confirming the theory that that all
airlines have at least one of seven key elements, namely Icons of Distance and Space,
Directionality, Speed, Nationhood, Motion, Flight and/or Name.
7. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to discover how FSCs and LCCs differentiate themselves from one
another by examining the key differences and similarities in tail fin design from the period
-14-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
2000 and 2012, as well as discovering how this these similarities and differences have evolved
over time. Reviewing literature to explore the significance of an airline’s brand, particularly in a
non-price competitive situation, allowed a framework to be constructed that allowed successful
separation of the two airline groups. Understanding the competition between the two airline
groups and how they each branded themselves, coupled with the effects of the external events
in the past decade allowed an in depth semiotic analysis of over 630 tail fins which gave the
key similarities and differences in tail fin design between LCCs and FSCs.
An airline’s visual brand, including the logo on their tail fin is one of the most important
instruments used to gain attention, recognition and differentiation from other brands for any
company trying to establish a corporate identity. They are the forefront of any airline trying to
differentiate their price and non-price characteristics to their customers and Airlines are
increasingly finding that utilising non-price elements of their business model can result in a
competitive advantage over rivals, and they use their visual brand, their tail fin to do this.
However, the research revealed that increased competition within the industry as well as
external events such as the economy have forced some airlines to change their business
strategies and, in turn, their visual brand. This was confirmed in the semiotic analysis of over
630 tail fins that revealed a change in the way FSCs and LCCs have visually branded
themselves over time. This was achieved by looking at up to 60 different colours, icons and
visual motifs.
FSCs and LCCs have actively changed the way they brand themselves through the use of their
tail fin over time suggesting that the changing business models of FSCs and LCCs also cause a
change in visual branding. Most significantly, the research revealed LCCs are moving towards
the use of unconventional colours whilst icons of nationhood were seen to decrease. The
decrease in icons of nationhood is possibly due to cabotage that allows internal operation in
countries outside of the airline’s registered country. However, nationhood remained popular for
FSCs possibly due to the home country of the airline itself being a non-price competitive value
to the airline. In addition, the ever-simplistic nature of LCCs business models is being mirrored
in tail fin design, with the average number of icons and colours decreasing over the period
studied, whilst FSCs remained static with their averages. Perhaps most significantly of all,
icons of speed remained increasing popular for both airline choices whereas icons of flight
decreased relatively proportionally to the increase in icons of speed, indicating the that
customer’s attitudes have changed over time from what once was a pleasurable flight
experience, to a speedy transportation service. LCCs show evidence that brand equity is
becoming an increasingly important non price competitive weapon and as such the full name of
the airline is being used at great frequency on the airline’s tail fin. It suggests that, as an icon,
the airline’s ‘name’ should be added to the list of characteristics making the list seven key
-15-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
characteristics: Distance and Space, Directionality, Speed, Nationhood, Motion, Flight and/or
Name.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New
York: Free Press.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?. European Journal of
Marketing, 37(7/8), 972-997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477627
Berry, L.L. (2000). Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Market Science,
28(1), 128-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012
Brodie, R.J., Whittome J.R.M., & Brush, G.J. (2009). Investigating the service brand: A
Customer value perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 345-355.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.008
Budd, L. (2012). The influence of business models and carrier nationality on airline liveries: An
analysis of 637 airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 23, 63-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.01.017
Buttle, H., & Westoby, N. (2006). Brand Logo and Name Association: It’s all in the Name.
Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1) 1181-1194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1257
Chen, C., & Chang, Y. (2008). Airline brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intentions –
The moderating effects of switching costs. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(1), 40-
42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.11.003
Hengi, B. I. (2000). Airline Tail Colours. Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing.
Keller K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal
of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252054
Manning, G. (2012). Airline Tail Colours. Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Publishing.
O’Connell, J. F., & Williams, G. (2005). Passengers’ perceptions of low cost carriers and full
service carriers: A case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(4), 259-272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.01.007
Shaw, S. (2007). Airline Marketing and Management. 6th Edition. Hampshire UK: Ashgate.
-16-

Journal of Airline and Airport Management 3(1), 1-17
Thurlow, C., & Aiello, G. (2007). National pride, global capital: a social semiotic analysis of
transnational visual branding in the airline industry. Journal of Visual Communication, 6(3),
305-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470357207081002
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional customer-based
equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(99)00098-3
Journal of Airline and Airport Management, 2012 - www.jairm.org
Article's contents are provided on a Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Creative commons
license. Readers are allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article's contents, provided
the author's and Journal of Airline and Airport Management's names are included. It must not
be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete license contents, please visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
-17-