bombadier29 wrote:
I think they are talking about flying museums versus static museums. I can't think of many flying museums that don't depend on the revenue from rides to a large extent.
If you limit to museums that fly, again,
globally, those with rides programmes are vastly outnumbered by those without.
(Of course if you call every pleasure flying operation a 'museum' that's not the case. But most don't represent themselves as such. In some countries, the US model for the Waiver program is not even legal.)
In the USA, I'd like to believe that the tickets bought for the Planes of Fame backseat rides, or Collings' tours, or the CAF offers, was 'the' major revenue stream, but if you have even a cursory look at the numbers, that simply can't be the case. Far more important to continued operation (as well as paying for fuel and consumables) are deep pockets, either on the Colonel CAF model or, in the case of most of those museums offering rides, one, rich, guy. Sponsorship is crucial in its various models as well.
To stack it another way; we'd lose a number of current flying operations and a proportion of the flights if rides were stopped tomorrow. Much would still fly. Conversely, if rides were to become 'the
only' income stream there would be a much greater curtailment in the numbers able to fly on that cash.
But all that's actually beside the point. Very few flying ex-military aircraft are historically important examples in their own right, and even fewer of those that are offering rides. Mostly they are representative examples, and owe their survival to being restored to flight and thus able to provide thrills and so forth.
Fifi, the B-24s and most of the B-17s and CWH Lanc are exciting
because you can fly in them. Their own history is simply not significant enough to be a drawcard for them
specifically beyond the fact they represent their peer types and crews, many of which didn't come back.
The static museums look after the original, historic machines, and some of the active museums offer rides - which is a good balance, IMHO.
In the bigger picture, flying aircraft get people moving; to airshows, the museums, and just to the fence to see Collings' hit their local airport. While vintage aviation runs on volunteers and money, that
interest is what gets the cash moving.
Regards,