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

[OD/NG]

Isn't Yanks Museum planning on moving to Salinas, CA? or have I heard wrong?

Actually, it is Greenfield, CA, which is about 35 miles SE of Salinas, but basically, yes, you are correct. They have planned and publicized the fact that they intend on moving to Greenfield since at least the 80's, but the move has been at a glacial pace. I've heard anecdotally that Nichols is in many legal fights with the city, hence the extensive delays. From my acquaintances at Chino, I've also heard that the move to Greenfield is off and is not going to happen. If this is true, then it makes sense for Nichols to "dig his heels in" on this lawsuit since he seemingly plans to stay at Chino forever.

[Lon Moer]

<>
That may be the case that Charlie Nichols doesn't care about public opinion, BUT, this seemingly "grass roots" orchestrated informal "boycott" is important for a very different reason - to show other aviation businesses what can potentially happen if they don't support airshows and public sentiment. I believe that all of the negative publicity is as much to make an example out of Yanks as it is to punish Yanks. As has been mentioned previously, this lawsuit IS going to set a precedent for the rest of the industry - good or bad - and lots of anti-aviation elements are watching it carefully. However this turns out, the rest of the businesses in the U.S. on or near airports need to know what the public thinks of entity's that try to stop airshows through legal means.
<>.

This is the most important point of all of this whole issue.
Once a precedent is made it will affect all airshows at all locations.

[marine air]

My dad and I visited yanks in June 1980. They were making a big deal about moving all the aircraft at that time. They said all the aircraft were flyable and would be flown over. So they've been telling that tale for more than 37 years.

[bdk]

My dad and I visited yanks in June 1980. They were making a big deal about moving all the aircraft at that time. They said all the aircraft were flyable and would be flown over. So they've been telling that tale for more than 37 years.

I am no spokesman for anything, but I have been at Chino Airport weekly, if not daily at times, since about 1981.

Yanks appears to have had a plan at one time to move everything to Greenfield. In the past 36 years it sounds like that has changed a bit. The situation at Chino Airport has changed in the intervening years as well. My plans sure have changed over the past 36 years!

1) From the press release above from Yanks, Misrepresentation #1:

"The group of tenants suing the operators of the annual Planes of Fame Air Show is calling for the County of San Bernardino to appoint a coalition of tenants to oversee any future air shows at the Chino Airport."

Yanks has not asked for a coalition of tenants, according to the publicly disclosed County of San Bernardino lawsuit documents. The list of judgments they seek in on pages 19-20, Case number DS1705434, County of San Bernardino, Superior Court, filed March 27, 2017. Getting a "coalition of tenants" is not mentioned in the lawsuit document.

I don't know how one could sue to get a coalition of tenants to operate the airshow (any WIX attorneys willing to chime in on this aspect?). You have to stop the airshow first I think, then form this committee to plan the next airshow. I think that Yanks has felt excluded from the airshow planning process for many years. Maybe Yanks would actively participate in the airshow and perhaps even fly something if they felt they were an active part of it and derived tangible benefit. Why would they spend a significant amount of money to solely benefit POF?

"The plaintiffs are not anti-air show......They want to clarify that this suit will not end air shows at the Chino Airport."

From page 19 of the same San Bernardino county public law document above, it states the plaintiffs' desired judgments:

"2. For a permanent injunction restraining Planes of Fame from operating an air show at the Chino Airport."

A permanent injunction to restrain POF from operating the airshow is not the same as banning airshows at Chino. EAA used to have airshows at Chino around 1980.

Of course it all boils down to money. The airshow benefits POF, just look at the airshow permit with the county- Yanks isn't mentioned at all. Yanks might have gotten some "soft money" from a few more people visiting or buying T-Shirts, but no hard cash like POF gets. The airshow is a major source of funding annually for POF and funds much of their ability to fly their fleet. I think that Yanks has assembled a fantastic collection and wants parity with POF. I'm not sure there is room for an annual Yanks airshow in the fall to compete with the POF airshow, especially since there is presently no airshow income for them to offset flying expenses, though I'd love to go to two Chino airshows a year instead of one.

I don't know if Yanks "deserves" parity with POF with respect to the airshow. I guess this lawsuit will tell us what the legal system thinks and public opinion will tell us the rest. I don't see POF giving up a significant portion of the pie willingly for airshow planning and income (control and money).

Leaving emotions at the door, this is just my personal logic with respect to this situation. I know people at both museums and if they see this they probably will now both hate me. Oh well... I'd certainly like both museums to prosper indefinitely (as self-sustaining museums), not one succeed and one fail. Not sure what approach can best do that. There is an opportunity for synergy between the museums where both can benefit from their association, but they do compete by definition. I don't see how this lawsuit could contribute to this but clearly Yanks is frustrated with the status quo.

Full disclosure: I am a lifetime member of POF so certainly want no harm to come to them.

[RobC]

One thing that I think is being overlooked is that the petitioner must be able to prove they have been harmed. Since Yank has been voluntarily closing for airshow weekend, how do they know whether staying open would have harmed or helped them? They have had a booth and sold gift shop items at the show, so they will have to include that gain against whatever they claim to have lost.

Flying Tigers will have to show that they sold less fuel, etc. No one even mentions the other petitioners. One of them shows one employee. How was he harmed?

Facebook was recently sued because they spy on people even when the people are not logged into Facebook. The judge found in favor of the petitioners, but awarded them nothing, because they failed to show how they were harmed.

[k5083]

Good post, Brandon. I agree, except I don't have any way of knowing whether Yanks wants to participate in an airshow. The two things you need to get a good warbird show together are flying assets of your own and a network of friends with other flying assets, and I don't know that Yanks has, or would want to develop, either of those.

Rob, proving harm from the airshow is not actually that hard, and it is laid out pretty well in the complaint. It seems Yanks feels it has to close, giving up a weekend's worth of revenue, and has to do some cleanup from all the dust from the adjacent field that becomes a parking lot. A more difficult burden, with respect to some of its theories, is that it must prove that POF acts intentionally to harm Yanks. Good luck with that.

None of this is unusual with airshows. Think of the many shows that occur at airports with scheduled commercial traffic and the disruption that must cause. (Personal note: Once I had to depart the CAF show at Midland early so I caught one of the flights they pause the show for, so the CRJ I was riding had a B-17, B-24 and Shackleton queued behind it. I did not mind the inconvenience!) Many third parties are harmed in at least some minor way whenever there is a show. The absurdity of both Yanks and the FBO's positions in the suit is that unlike many tenants, they appear to be well positioned to benefit from the airshow if they so choose. Unless there is bad evidence that POF has shut them out, this would seem to be a useful defense.

Another defense might be that the locality takes these costs into account and weighs them against the benefits when it approves the airshow permit. The issuance of the permit would seem to be a determination, by the body best placed to do so, that the overall community's interests are best served by letting the event go forward. That should be at least persuasive, if not legally dispositive. I imagine POF is gathering evidence of the benefits of the event to the airport and community in case they have to justify the show again for the court. This would include, by the way, the number of signatures to the change.org petition, so be sure to sign that if you haven't yet, and get your friends to do the same. If POF can show that the airshow, on balance, brings great benefit to the community and that any harm to the plaintiffs can be made good with dollars later, they should be able to defeat the injunction.

August

[bdk]

Thanks August for the informed opinion.

Any thoughts as to why Yanks didn't sue the county who issued the permit instead of POF?

[RobC]

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, August. The only time I watched a civil trial, the judge was very impressive. I could easily see him turning to the Yanks attorney and asking, "if you haven't tried staying open, how do you know you have lost anything? You have 20,000 people in front of your door who are buying what you're selling".

An astute judge might also ask what is preventing the Yanks from having their own airshow. October is a very nice month in Chino.

[k5083]

Any thoughts as to why Yanks didn't sue the county who issued the permit instead of POF?

Not really. They may have objected to the county permit and lost. I don't know.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, August. The only time I watched a civil trial, the judge was very impressive. I could easily see him turning to the Yanks attorney and asking, "if you haven't tried staying open, how do you know you have lost anything? You have 20,000 people in front of your door who are buying what you're selling".

Agreed. Again, the example of Duxford -- the IWM buildings are packed on show days while people wait for the action to start; you can't even take pictures for the crowds. I even missed a P-47 that was there somewhere, how do you lose a P-47?! Yanks might be concerned that it couldn't handle all the traffic, but they could set up a queue and regulate access to however many people they want.

An astute judge might also ask what is preventing the Yanks from having their own airshow. October is a very nice month in Chino.

He might, but it's not really a relevant question. This is fundamentally a trespass action, and you don't respond to a claim that people are throwing trash in your yard by saying, "Why don't you throw some trash of your own?" If Yanks had framed their complaint as being upset at being left out of the airshow, which some people seem to think is their real beef, that would be different.

Yanks is of course perfectly within its rights not to want to run an airshow but just to have a few buildings full of static airplanes, and it is also within its rights not to want mobs of people or no people in there but just a few at a time. But when you are that inflexible you are going to bump up against other things that go on at a shared public facility.

August

[bdk]

And here is the response from the POF attorneys, making some good points as well!

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/2/b/2 ... 3645b72201

[TAdan]

PoF's response was a very entertaining read.

[k5083]

It is an excellent brief and makes all the right arguments compellingly and dispassionately. Well done to the Reid & Hellyer firm.

Also very interesting for us voyeurs curious about the economics of running an airshow.

August

[CAPFlyer]

I'm still reading it, but remember how the plaintiff's declaration had this allusion to "real names", trying to suggest that PoF and/or it's officers weren't using their legal names to conduct business and were hiding them from the public? On PDF page 12, line 9, it states that "Flying Tigers" has had its corporation status revoked by the State of California. Funny how that works - you claim PoF is an "illigitmate" not-for-profit, yet you aren't a legitimate for-profit corporation.

You're right. This is going to be entertaining.

[RacingMustang]

Wow. Impressive. Pretty much cut them off at the knees. Very glad to see this.

"Plaintiffs do not contend that Planes of Fame designed the Air Show to interfere or disrupt any of the plaintiff’s contracts, but only contend that the mere existence of the Air Show interferes or disrupts their contracts. Given that the motion admits that Planes of Fame “is a competitor and has been an airport tenant for decades,” the more likely rationale is that the plaintiffs, as business rivals, seek to enjoin Planes of Fame in court because they cannot compete with Planes of Fame in business."

Boom.

[ZRX61]

Duxford should be the model. They have a major flying museum, a major static museum, and several vintage aircraft related businesses on the field. Can you imagine IWM complaining that the airshows cause it cost and inconvenience? Yes you can! It's always easy to imagine people being jerks! But instead, they entered into a mutually beneficial partnership and made the airfield more of a destination that it could have been with either tenant alone.

Totally agree. Through this whole fiasco I thought Chino to be the Duxford of the West Coast. They sure don't operate like Duxford though.

The entire airfield at Dx is a museum & the museum has tenants who contribute to the museum as a whole. I'm not sure what it's like now, but when I was there the entire GA *fleet* based at Dx was one solitary Cessna & TFC's Beech Barron.
CNO couldn't operate like that owing to the vast number of GA aircraft & private hangars littering the place.