Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:57 am
Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:08 am
Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:15 am
Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:22 am
Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:59 am
Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:07 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:It's interesting as well that there are multiple references to the plaintiff's claiming there are no adequate protections or resolutions under the law to these "actions" by PoF, yet they continually reference items that must be approved as part of the special permit for the airshow by the County Aviation Board as part of the airshow plan (like placement of signage and traffic diversion). There are claims that are pretty specious on any level and I doubt would make it to an actual trial, but it'll be interesting to see where it goes.
Personally, even with California's extremely liberal courts, I don't see this going anywhere good for the plaintiffs because they do have other recourse - called the county - and if they had approached the county about their concerns and were turned away, then they're going to have a hard time getting a sympathetic jury. If they didn't approach the county first, then they're gonna have a hard time convincing the judge to let the case even go to a jury.
Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:47 pm
Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:14 pm
Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:40 pm
RandolphB wrote:If anybody should have been sued, it was the county for allowing this to happen as it does.
RandolphB wrote:It doesn't draw visitors to Yanks, because barricades route you around and away from them.
RandolphB wrote:The airport is over-run, usually empty fields are used as parking and ALL the roads are blocked and regulated by POF volunteers. While well intended, many of them are actually darn rude to the public.
RandolphB wrote:If you want to go to Yanks during the week of the event, you're not allowed to go down the road to their parking lot.
RandolphB wrote:As for dust from parking- it IS a frellin nightmare. As fine as it is, it gets into everything.
Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:56 pm
C VEICH wrote:Beyond that nobody here knows if PoF has extended any olive branches or not in regards to handling these issues. If not, shame on them. But I get the sense that there is a WHOLE lot of back story that we are not privy to.
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:54 am
Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:12 pm
Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:33 pm
Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:00 pm
JimH wrote:Years ago Charlie Nichols was making plans to move Yanks to northern CA. There was a vineyard and a sprawling complex planned. That all seemed to go away within the last 15 years...which, speaking now, is a shame. They have clearly benefited from the fore site of Ed Maloney, who was around long before Yanks. I just read through their Yelp page and the boycott has begun. Shutting down their Facebook page comments will do little to help them as well. While Yanks has deep pockets they still need traffic and in todays world of social media, I'm afraid they just committed suicide. The shear shortsightedness of waging a lawsuit over one of the most beloved warbird museums in the world is almost inconceivable. I would venture to say that there are enough high powered aviation attorneys willing to take this on in behalf of POF. In the end this will only bolster POF and build an even bigger following. While I'm sure the story has deeper roots, I'll say you will not find a better bunch of warbirders than the people who run POF.
The success of Planes of Fame absolutely revolves around them flying...airplanes don't generate sustainable income unless they fly. It's a simple formula. The warbird movement has never been stronger...and now is certainly not a time to wage a war with someone that could be your strongest partner.
Jim
Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:36 pm
CoastieJohn wrote:I'm not jumping on anyone's band wagon as there is likely more to the story that hasn't come out and I do not think this is a good thing for anyone.
With that said, after reading the court document......does anyone know first-hand if Yanks, Flying Tigers and the other parties have legitimate concerns?