Yanks Air Museum (and others) suing to stop the POF airshow?

[OD/NG]

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

I wholeheartedly agree Jim!

I first visited Yanks back in the early 80's, before it was really open to the public and it was just a couple of hangars at Chino airport. I remember hearing about that time, maybe a few years later, about the impending move to Greenfield, CA. The folks I talked to there said that the entire Chino operation was moving to Greenfield and they were no longer going to have a presence at Chino. Now, fast forward 30 to 35 years later, and that plan has changed and the only thing they have to show for it is a trailer park on the property. I've heard anecdotally, (somebody verify, please) that Nichols was involved in several lawsuits up in Greenfield regarding his plans to build the museum up there and move the entire operation from Chino. Supposedly, the "sleepy" little town did not want all the extra traffic and people that would "destroy" their quaint, little community. As a result, I've heard the whole thing is mired in legal battles. If this is true, funny how now the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe Yanks is getting a little dose of their own medicine.

POF is an awesome operation with great, friendly people. I've always had a great time out there, whether it is visiting the Museum on Euclid street, or attending the POF airshow for many years.

I predict that what Jim says is true - that Yanks and the other 4 litigants in this lawsuit will effectively be "blackballed" within the aviation community. It's already started, as Jim mentioned. Check out some of the reviews on yelp, trip advisor, etc. The negative reviews are already pouring in. The ironic thing about all of this is that Yanks will be absolutely devastated by the backlash of negative publicity, primarily from social media and word-of-mouth. That effect will probably be 100 times more devastating than the effect of not drawing business for 2 days out of the year.

All I have to say is that I'm bringing out my popcorn and I'm going to watch the implosion.

[OD/NG]

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?

From my understanding they don't.

POF has spent twenty years building a business (their airshow) they have a contract with the governing authority to hold the airshow. They built the brand, made the investment, provided the employees and volunteers and the product (airplanes) to make the business profitable at great risk. Now a party comes along and wants to profit from the investment of others. Yanks could have chosen to remain open during the airshow and given a discount to airshow attendees to drive attendance to their museum and sell souvenirs. Instead I understand they are demanding a piece of the pie. if it was your business would you give up part of it because some johnny come lately said they wanted a piece of the action because they were on your street and in the same business. If you would you are a socialist. I am not.

As for Flying Tigers. They are a relatively new FBO to CNO. The POF airshow is 20 years old. Did they not know when they did their due diligence before opening that there was an airshow at the airport EVERY year? Not to mention I am pretty sure they had a large concession area as part of their FBO last year...a beer garden I think...during the airshow. One has to wonder if the benefactor of Yanks is also invested in this business to get them to participate, or does he rent them their facility? I know he used to hold a lot of hangars on the airport occupied by other businesses.

Good points, Tim. Just to add on to what you said, I believe that the POF airshow is actually on its 25th consecutive year of operation. I know that POF had airshows at Chino airport in the 70's and 80's, but I believe they shut it down for a few years, then restarted it in the early 90's, IIRC. Nevertheless, your point remains extremely valid. I believe that every entity in that lawsuit started or was formed well after the annual POF airshow was in regular operation.

[CoastieJohn]

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?

From my understanding they don't.

POF has spent twenty years building a business (their airshow) they have a contract with the governing authority to hold the airshow. They built the brand, made the investment, provided the employees and volunteers and the product (airplanes) to make the business profitable at great risk. Now a party comes along and wants to profit from the investment of others. Yanks could have chosen to remain open during the airshow and given a discount to airshow attendees to drive attendance to their museum and sell souvenirs. Instead I understand they are demanding a piece of the pie. if it was your business would you give up part of it because some johnny come lately said they wanted a piece of the action because they were on your street and in the same business. If you would you are a socialist. I am not.

As for Flying Tigers. They are a relatively new FBO to CNO. The POF airshow is 20 years old. Did they not know when they did their due diligence before opening that there was an airshow at the airport EVERY year? Not to mention I am pretty sure they had a large concession area as part of their FBO last year...a beer garden I think...during the airshow. One has to wonder if the benefactor of Yanks is also invested in this business to get them to participate, or does he rent them their facility? I know he used to hold a lot of hangars on the airport occupied by other businesses.

I concur with what you're saying except that "a piece of the pie" is not mentioned in the court document. They list various grievances that revolve around their own loss of revenue due to the alleged impact of the airshow. As we know, it's not what you think, it's what you can prove. If this doesn't get settled out of or tossed out of court first (which I think will eventually happen), I'll speculate this group will be (should be?) required to open their books for the time period of the airshow going back a certain amount of years to prove this loss of revenue being claimed in the suit. If they can prove it, they might legally have a legit beef. If they made money during the airshow time frame they otherwise would not have, they will loose this claim and maybe even be subject to a counter-suit. As I said earlier, I don't think this is good for anyone involved. Interesting times though.....

[OD/NG]

Yanks has finally made a public comment on the lawsuit on their facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/YanksAirMuseum/

It's already getting nasty and Yanks is editing people's responses to that post.

Yep, get the popcorn ready, this is going to get really ugly!

[CAPFlyer]

Their statement, while it sounds good, proves their ignorance of how to handle a conflict in the modern world much less in court. If they've really been trying to work amicably with PoF, then why did they (by their own admission) want to involve lawyers at the last minute in the agreement discussions? Why have they not gone to the Airport Advisory Board meetings, County Commissioner, or hold their own public meetings? To say they want to work with PoF but their continued ACTIONS be directed solely at PoF and not at the county and airport authority as well tells the public much more than I think they understand, and it will be to their great detriment.

I do hope this gets worked out, but knowing Steve's reputation, I doubt he's going to look to settle this out of court. When you bring in the lawyers, he's done talking.

[maradamx3]

the yanks facebook page started to receive massive negative ratings that they now deleted the rating system on their page, and also closed the comment section.

Please go to TripAdvisor and leave a "review" for Yanks. They can't pull those down.

[MilitaryAttractions]

darn, and to think I was just at both of these Museums 2 months ago. Really nice people I encountered at both museums. What a shame.

[Tim Savage]

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?

From my understanding they don't.

POF has spent twenty years building a business (their airshow) they have a contract with the governing authority to hold the airshow. They built the brand, made the investment, provided the employees and volunteers and the product (airplanes) to make the business profitable at great risk. Now a party comes along and wants to profit from the investment of others. Yanks could have chosen to remain open during the airshow and given a discount to airshow attendees to drive attendance to their museum and sell souvenirs. Instead I understand they are demanding a piece of the pie. if it was your business would you give up part of it because some johnny come lately said they wanted a piece of the action because they were on your street and in the same business. If you would you are a socialist. I am not.

As for Flying Tigers. They are a relatively new FBO to CNO. The POF airshow is 20 years old. Did they not know when they did their due diligence before opening that there was an airshow at the airport EVERY year? Not to mention I am pretty sure they had a large concession area as part of their FBO last year...a beer garden I think...during the airshow. One has to wonder if the benefactor of Yanks is also invested in this business to get them to participate, or does he rent them their facility? I know he used to hold a lot of hangars on the airport occupied by other businesses.

I concur with what you're saying except that "a piece of the pie" is not mentioned in the court document. They list various grievances that revolve around their own loss of revenue due to the alleged impact of the airshow. As we know, it's not what you think, it's what you can prove. If this doesn't get settled out of or tossed out of court first (which I think will eventually happen), I'll speculate this group will be (should be?) required to open their books for the time period of the airshow going back a certain amount of years to prove this loss of revenue being claimed in the suit. If they can prove it, they might legally have a legit beef. If they made money during the airshow time frame they otherwise would not have, they will loose this claim and maybe even be subject to a counter-suit. As I said earlier, I don't think this is good for anyone involved. Interesting times though.....

I will just say that lawsuits are used in business all the time as leverage for what the party really wants. Just because in the lawsuit they aren't demanding a piece of the pie (because they have no legal standing to do so) doesn't mean that is not their ultimate goal. I have been told from folks in the know that this is the case in this situation.

[k5083]

I imagine this is far from the first lawsuit to enjoin an airshow. Pretty much any airshow on an active airport imposes costs and inconvenience on someone. There should be a body of precedent to provide clear guidance for the judge.

I agree with most of you that this looks like a stupid move. Yanks benefits from POF's presence and profile every single day, and it would hardly require a marketing genius to turn the airshow days into Yanks's highest-revenue days of the year. If they are so bad at free-riding that they can't make a bonanza out of hundreds of thousands of people interested in their own subject matter packing the airport for an event that they don't have to invest or take any risk in, I would hope that they don't get a lot of sympathy from the judge.

August

[MilitaryAttractions]

[TAdan]

K5083: If they are so bad at free-riding that they can't make a bonanza out of hundreds of thousands of people interested in their own subject matter packing the airport for an event that they don't have to invest or take any risk in, I would hope that they don't get a lot of sympathy from the judge.

Totally agree! It's a Warbird show and they have a building full of Warbirds and they can't figure out how to make this work!? They're doing something wrong and I don't think it's PoF's fault. If I was attending a Warbird show and had the option to see more Warbirds for a small fee, I think I'd gladly pay it.

I read through the Lawsuit and it seems pretty thin on substance. The fact that they can not cite any specific amounts about revenue lost and cleanup cost is ridiculous. They should have that information readily at hand.

[CoastieJohn]

I will just say that lawsuits are used in business all the time as leverage for what the party really wants. Just because in the lawsuit they aren't demanding a piece of the pie (because they have no legal standing to do so) doesn't mean that is not their ultimate goal. I have been told from folks in the know that this is the case in this situation.

If your sources are correct regarding the ultimate goal, this has the potential to be bad news not just for the parties on both sides......but I would now be concerned who will get hurt that has no involvement in this whatsoever?

[Lynn Allen]

Yanks has finally made a public comment on the lawsuit on their facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/YanksAirMuseum/

It's already getting nasty and Yanks is editing people's responses to that post.

Yep, get the popcorn ready, this is going to get really ugly!

After reading the comments off of Yanks Facebook page, its seems to be all over except for the crying. I echo everyone else's comments about POF and being a member of the museum living in Texas, I have always and will continue to support them. I might even upgrade my membership this year as well. Now I just have to make it out there for the "annual" airshow...

[Roger Cain]

One thing about the Yanks Air Museum being at the Chino Airport, is that most of us out of the area, never would have visited the Yanks Museum specifically, had we not been going to the POF air show. We car pool down from Northern Calif. in a group of around ten each year, and then meet up with other friends and almost always go to Yanks on Thursday or Friday morning. We also spend a nice chunk of change on their souvenirs. Had it not been for POF's show, we wouldn't have gone there. They shot themselves in the foot, we won't be stopping in.

[airknocker]

From AeroNewsNetwork, note statement from ICAS:
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main. ... ef28f34022