Back in January the design and communications world was in an uproar about the latest work from Futureband – a radically redesigned American Airlines brand and livery to coincide with its acquisition of US Airways.

If that wasn’t enough up in the air, as it were, the new CEO of American Airlines Group, Doug Parker, is now putting it to an internal vote. All employees will be asked if they want to go ahead with the new tail livery or to keep the beloved 1968 designs.

Parker wrote in Arrivals magazine, the internal comms publication, “As we build our new company, we want all of our employees to have a voice in who we are as an airline, and that starts  with what we look like. As such, today we launched a survey for all employees of the combined company to vote on what we should do with our new look for the tail – keep the work that was done, or go back to the previous American.”

From an internal communications perspective, this is a smart move by a CEO whose background is with US Airways, seeking to unite a workforce behind a common identity. However, in terms of branding, this could be a faux pas. AA would maintain the new branding on the fuselage, and potentially use the 1968 logo on the tail of each plane, thereby confusing the brand system and by extension, the general public.

The 60s version of the livery is the work of renowned designer Massimo Vignelli. Its replacement caused massive debate in the international design community.

As of 6 January, 52% of employees chose to stick with the Futurebrand American flag livery. This could have been the result of a solid internal comms campaign during the rebrand process.

Daniel Kay, marketing executive, Endpoint

On the face of it, involving employees in the redesign of the new tail fin makes perfect sense. The airplane is, after all, American Airlines’ most recognisable brand asset and their employees are the living embodiment of the brand. However, asking all the employees to make a decision on which one they prefer is stepping into the murky waters of ‘design by committee’ and, in this case, it could be fraught with danger.

A redesign of the tail fin needs to be based on solid brands values and positioning, it needs to communicate exactly what the brand stands for and this design needs to be incorporated throughout all brand identity carriers. The big question is do the employees who are voting understand what the different designs represent or are they just basing it on which one they think looks the nicest? If it’s the later it could be meet with a similar response from its customers as Margaret Thatcher’s famous reaction when British Airways redesigned its tail fin.

The big consideration for American Airlines is how this new design will be communicated to its audience and how will it be applied to other brand assets? Will it be incorporated throughout its website, its uniforms and its check-in desks? I would hope that AA has thought about this and the answer is yes; but do the employees know this too? Only by consistently applying the design across all of their brand assets will it achieve impact and communicate the correct values and message to its customers. If not, there could be disparity between the new design and the old logo, which has the potential to confuse the audience.

This is a great way to engage employees in the big decisions of the company, but only if they understand what each design represents and it is applied consistently across all brand carriers.