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

[florida.warbirds]

Update: 20 April 2017 --The hearing has been moved to 28 April due to the judge, that was scheduled to hear the case, has had some dealings with the airport and county. The request was made by Yanks Air Museum. It is also rumors that SOCAL MRO and Zangeneh Aeronautics has withdrawn from the case.

[Flying Pencil]

I was shocked to read about this in the CAF home page.
If you missed it, even CAF is putting support behind PoF.

Came here to find out WTH is going on.

... 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

Totally agree.
There are many ways to resolve issues, even call on community for help to resolve issues.
This community could ill afford any kind of negative news, and this is the worst kind. Even if PoF show goes ahead, it would still cause a cloud to hang over everyone for a long time.

Off to sign petition,
It is cliché, but the must go on and resolving issues needs to be done later (hopefully to everyones satisfaction)

Last edited by Flying Pencil on Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Flying Pencil]

Update: 20 April 2017 --The hearing has been moved to 28 April due to the judge, that was scheduled to hear the case, has had some dealings with the airport and county. The request was made by Yanks Air Museum. It is also rumors that SOCAL MRO and Zangeneh Aeronautics has withdrawn from the case.

Who are these 2 exactly?

[OD/NG]

Update: 20 April 2017 --The hearing has been moved to 28 April due to the judge, that was scheduled to hear the case, has had some dealings with the airport and county. The request was made by Yanks Air Museum. It is also rumors that SOCAL MRO and Zangeneh Aeronautics has withdrawn from the case.

Who are these 2 exactly?

You can read about them in the public court filings. Everybody in that lawsuit is friends with Charles Nichols, the owner of Yanks Air Museum. Nichols got all of his buddies to go along with him to file that lawsuit for apparently either vindictive or ego-centric purposes. No sane, coherent businessman would do what Yanks has done, as it is economic suicide.

[Mike]

... 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.

Yanks are getting the bad reviews pulled from both Yelp and Tripadvidor. I've had both of mine deleted in the past few days, and I've noticed many more have disappeared too.

[Mike]

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.

The comparison with Duxford is not really relevant. IWM own the site (including the airfield itself, which they acquired from the local Council some years ago) and are not simply 'tenants' as you imply. They also organize most of the airshows and other events themselves, so I'm not sure who you think they would complain to!

[Flying Pencil]

Update: 20 April 2017 --The hearing has been moved to 28 April due to the judge, that was scheduled to hear the case, has had some dealings with the airport and county. The request was made by Yanks Air Museum. It is also rumors that SOCAL MRO and Zangeneh Aeronautics has withdrawn from the case.

Who are these 2 exactly?

You can read about them in the public court filings. Everybody in that lawsuit is friends with Charles Nichols, the owner of Yanks Air Museum. Nichols got all of his buddies to go along with him to file that lawsuit for apparently either vindictive or ego-centric purposes. No sane, coherent businessman would do what Yanks has done, as it is economic suicide.

Sorry, I meant specifically "SOCAL MRO and Zangeneh"

[k5083]

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.

The comparison with Duxford is not really relevant. IWM own the site (including the airfield itself, which they acquired from the local Council some years ago) and are not simply 'tenants' as you imply. They also organize most of the airshows and other events themselves, so I'm not sure who you think they would complain to!

it is relevant as an example of synergistic cooperation between static museum, flying museum, resto shops, FBOs and other aviation related businesses, which was my point. I was not suggesting to duplicate the ownership or administrative model of the airfield.

August

[bdk]

You can read about them in the public court filings. Everybody in that lawsuit is friends with Charles Nichols, the owner of Yanks Air Museum. Nichols got all of his buddies to go along with him to file that lawsuit for apparently either vindictive or ego-centric purposes. No sane, coherent businessman would do what Yanks has done, as it is economic suicide.

Please explain how Yanks suffers significant financial harm by filing this suit. They wouldn't have filed unless they saw significant upside potential.

[OD/NG]

You can read about them in the public court filings. Everybody in that lawsuit is friends with Charles Nichols, the owner of Yanks Air Museum. Nichols got all of his buddies to go along with him to file that lawsuit for apparently either vindictive or ego-centric purposes. No sane, coherent businessman would do what Yanks has done, as it is economic suicide.

Please explain how Yanks suffers significant financial harm by filing this suit. They wouldn't have filed unless they saw significant upside potential.

I think it's pretty obvious how they are being affected. They are essentially being "blackballed" by the rest of the aviation community. Just look at the negative reviews being mentioned earlier. Granted, most of their operations are subsidized by Nichols, but what little income they make off of the museum is now going to come crashing down very quickly. As far as "they wouldn't have filed unless they saw significant upside potential" - you are saying that with the assumption that they are making a calculated business decision. It appears that this lawsuit is the result of an emotional and/or ego-centric response on Yanks' part. I don't believe there is a "significant upside potential". If there is one, what do you think it is?

[bdk]

I don't believe there is a "significant upside potential". If there is one, what do you think it is?

I don't know, but Nichols is a very astute businessman and I doubt this is his first lawsuit. I would not underestimate him.

I have no particular insight into this and no legal training FWIW.

[OD/NG]

I don't believe there is a "significant upside potential". If there is one, what do you think it is?

I don't know, but Nichols is a very astute businessman and I doubt this is his first lawsuit. I would not underestimate him.

I have no particular insight into this and no legal training FWIW.

True, but that is assuming that Nichols is the one making the decisions. Maybe it's someone else in the family. I've heard rumors and second hand info that Nichols may not be the one pulling all the strings here. Well, anyways, we'll know which direction this is going on the 28th.

[ZRX61]

Yanks have dropped the injunction.

[BK]

https://yanksair.org/2017-air-show-chin ... community/

Chino Airport Tenants Withdraw Their Request for a Preliminary Injunction to Stop Planes of Fame from Operating the 2017 Air Show but will Continue to Seek a Coalition to Oversee the 2018 Air Show

CHINO, CA — The group of plaintiffs filing suit against Planes of Fame have withdrawn the motion for a preliminary injunction of the 2017 air show. This action will allow the air show to proceed as planned on May 6th and 7th, 2017. The plaintiffs will continue legal action in their pursuit of fair operations for future air shows at the Chino Airport.

“We do not want others to be harmed, as we have been every year, by the unfair actions of Planes of Fame. We decided to drop the preliminary injunction for the sake of attendees and vendors – those who have purchased tickets, those who have made travel arrangements, and those who are there to sell goods, services, and food. We hope to see a change in the way Planes of Fame operates this year’s air show now that a light has been shed on the ongoing issues they have refused to resolve,” said Christen Wright, Director of Yanks Air Museum.

The plaintiffs filed suit against Planes of Fame last month after numerous attempts to resolve ongoing issues that have worsened in recent years. The plaintiffs allege that these issues include intentional attempts to physically block and obstruct their businesses before, during, and after the air show. The decision to withdraw the motion for a preliminary injunction was made after the original hearing scheduled on April 20th was postponed to April 28th because of a conflict with the original judge assigned to the case.

“We were getting too close to the air show. We tried to start conversations with Planes of Fame immediately after the 2016 air show but they were unwilling to sit down and create a binding agreement. We were tired of having meetings where they would agree to a plan and then not keep their word. Even after filing suit, they made no effort to resolve this out of court,” said Michael Thayer, President of Flying Tigers Aviation.

The five businesses that filed suit include Yanks, which operates an aircraft museum with more than 200 planes, an aviation fuel supplier, the landlord of one flight school, and the operators of two other flight schools. Moving forward, the plaintiffs will seek a speedy court date for future legal matters to avoid affecting third parties who have no control over Planes of Fame’s behavior.

“We are trying to create a healthy and positive environment for everyone. We will continue to take a stand for what we believe is right and will continue to offer Planes of Fame the opportunity to resolve this outside of court,” Wright said.

[bdk]

This is getting curiouser and curiouser! Certainly disruptive.