Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbirds?
Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:30 pm
Is it safe to assume that the Base Realignment and Closure act killed off airshows and military aircraft flying in general? The base closures had a negative outcome for the local economical landscape since businesses thrived from service members using local services. Plus these bases often footed the bill for large airshows. And air museums based there suffered because they lost their off duty personnel volunteers and support from the thriving communities to began with.
I just see this had a negative impact and it's effects are still present. 350 bases were closed between 1988 and 2005. After 2005 i have to agree the amount of military aircraft flying has decreased as well as airshows.
I just see this had a negative impact and it's effects are still present. 350 bases were closed between 1988 and 2005. After 2005 i have to agree the amount of military aircraft flying has decreased as well as airshows.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:10 pm
Nathan wrote:Is it safe to assume that the Base Realignment and Closure act killed off airshows and military aircraft flying in general? The base closures had a negative outcome for the local economical landscape since businesses thrived from service members using local services. Plus these bases often footed the bill for large airshows. And air museums based there suffered because they lost their off duty personnel volunteers and support from the thriving communities to began with.
I just see this had a negative impact and it's effects are still present. 350 bases were closed between 1988 and 2005. After 2005 i have to agree the amount of military aircraft flying has decreased as well as airshows.
Well, we have a HUGE national deficit... if it comes down to military personnel's proficiency, or airshows, I'd prefer their proficiency.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:57 am
Nathan wrote:Is it safe to assume that the Base Realignment and Closure act killed off airshows and military aircraft flying in general? The base closures had a negative outcome for the local economical landscape since businesses thrived from service members using local services. Plus these bases often footed the bill for large airshows. And air museums based there suffered because they lost their off duty personnel volunteers and support from the thriving communities to began with.
I just see this had a negative impact and it's effects are still present. 350 bases were closed between 1988 and 2005. After 2005 i have to agree the amount of military aircraft flying has decreased as well as airshows.
In the past 10 years or so, with squadron budget cutbacks and reduction of flight time and mission prioritization, airshows are at the bottom of the list. As far as the installations ( Air Force and Navy ) hosting said shows, they may not have the budget for it either. Warbirds gotta get paid.....
If anything with the current climate, DOD policy ( which is fairly restrictive ) during said climate, I doubt bases will open up for airshows anytime soon. I like to think next season will be a big deal. Who knows at this point.
As far as far as the static displays on base? Couldnt really say. Even with volunteers, still costs money. For the bases where I was stationed, squadrons or tenant units would "adopt an airplane" and ensure it was presentable. Again, the cost of that would come from that unit/squadron.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:15 am
Over the many years I helped organize an air show in Wendover, Utah, this was not my experience.
I found that many of the modern military aircraft I asked to attend, did in fact attend. Some aircraft we could not support due to operational restrictions (T-38, AWACS mostly) but both the Navy and Air Force were awesome. We tried our best to go over the top to take care of the crews and meet whatever thier needs were but they were always happy to support the show. This included single ship demos - of course it helped that Viper West was in our backyard and Wendover often serves as a backup landing site for Hill AFB.
One of my memorable times was being able to air start an F-5 from NAS Fallon - I have plenty of 'huffer' experience but never an F-5!
Warbirds are a different story - they are beautiful and expensive. Like an old bumper sticker I saw - "Gas, ass, grass - you ride you pay". Big shows get tons of warbirds because they can pay for it. No way I believe for a second that all the Corsairs that went to Thunder Over Michigan a few years back did it, "just to be there" - someone had DEEP pockets to pay the operators.
My .02
Tom P.
I found that many of the modern military aircraft I asked to attend, did in fact attend. Some aircraft we could not support due to operational restrictions (T-38, AWACS mostly) but both the Navy and Air Force were awesome. We tried our best to go over the top to take care of the crews and meet whatever thier needs were but they were always happy to support the show. This included single ship demos - of course it helped that Viper West was in our backyard and Wendover often serves as a backup landing site for Hill AFB.
One of my memorable times was being able to air start an F-5 from NAS Fallon - I have plenty of 'huffer' experience but never an F-5!
Warbirds are a different story - they are beautiful and expensive. Like an old bumper sticker I saw - "Gas, ass, grass - you ride you pay". Big shows get tons of warbirds because they can pay for it. No way I believe for a second that all the Corsairs that went to Thunder Over Michigan a few years back did it, "just to be there" - someone had DEEP pockets to pay the operators.
My .02
Tom P.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:38 am
Nathan wrote:Is it safe to assume that the Base Realignment and Closure act killed off airshows and military aircraft flying in general? ........
No. I do not think that is a safe assumption.
Sure some regular airshows are no longer held at bases that do not exist, but I do not think BRAC had the direct correlation you imply.
There has been a tightening of funds for most military programs, and there are fewer squadrons, fewer aircraft, and fewer reserve/guard units to go around for displays and weekend flyaways that were around in the heyday of airshows like in the 1970's, but that was not "BRAC" that did that, it was general downsizing. BRAC closed or aligned excess infrastructure, in the attempt to free up funds for other activities.
I still think the US military has done a commendable job representing at shows with dedicated demonstration teams, demo teams, fly bys and static displays.
With fewer bases there are indeed fewer airshows, and yes if your local airbase and annual show was closed, sure that has an impact on jobs, the community and yes least importantly airshows. But when there were numerous shows there was a risk of watered down demos and static dispalys. The Blue Angels and Thunderbirds and demo teams always got more requests than available slots. They had to decide which they could support, and with a few must do shows every year, their choices were limited. Chances are smaller shows lost out. You can debate whether it is better to have more shows, or fewer shows, but with better aircraft attendance. I do recall be disappointed when going to a typically larger show at a major NAS and having been quite disappointed by the lack of military aircraft flying and the static park from the heydays. As for airshows I go for the military aircraft and war birds, and will go out of my way to see something rare or unique (like the Mosquito and Me-262 which I never thought i would see in my lifetime). I could care less about sky divers, home builds, Pitts and stunt planes, I usually take that time to stroll though the statics....
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:27 pm
I would think the general reduction in the number of aircraft in the inventory has had much more of an effect on airshows than BRAC. It might be fair to say that BRAC and the reduction in the inventory are directly tied together, but I don't follow defense news closely enough to make an educated statement on that.
From looking at Air Force almanacs dating back to the 1988 BRAC, we can see the reduction in Air Force inventory. I used 1988, 2005 (final BRAC) and 2019 for comparison:
1988
USAF - 7496 aircraft
ANG - 1730 aircraft
AFRC - 492 aircraft
Total - 9718 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... igures.pdf
2005
USAF - 4273 aircraft
ANG - 1313 aircraft
AFRC - 400 aircraft
Total - 5986 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... s_figs.pdf
2019
USAF - 4015 aircraft
ANG - 1015 aircraft
AFRC - 324 aircraft
Total - 5354 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... issue5.pdf
From this we see roughly a 45 percent reduction in USAF/ANG/AFRC inventory over the last 30 years - coincidentally pretty close to the same amount of time I've been attending airshows. I count about a dozen aircraft types listed in the 1988 inventory that are no longer in service (and there's probably a lot more than that). I could not immediately find a similar source for US Navy or USMC Aviation and didn't look for a source on US Army or Coast Guard inventory, but I would expect to find similar reductions in each service.
It would seem to make sense that this reduction in inventory would result in fewer aircraft being available for airshows. Just as importantly, there are fewer different types of aircraft available to make appearances. We don't have Prowlers, Intruders, S-3s, A-7s, F-117s, etc. anymore because we now have aircraft types that are performing multiple roles. The Super Hornet and its various models fill roles that were once held by a number of different types of aircraft. An airshow in 1988 (or even 2005) could justify spending more on hotel rooms, etc. to bring in the different types of aircraft that fill these roles. I remember going to airshows as a kid in the 90s and seeing Skyhawks, Intruders, Prowlers, F-14s, T-2s, S-3s, C-141s and even a FB-111. Now, is it worth spending to bring in multiple squadrons of Super Hornets that look the same but fill a different mission role? Is that the best use of an airshow budget or military flight hours?
I do think military support for airshows recently in my area has been great. I'm seeing a lot more local squadron involvement than 10 years ago. When bases and units have put on shows, they have coordinated well with other local units to get more military aircraft flying in their airshows. Ten years ago, we'd see one ACC or TAC Demo and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds and that was it (at least around here). I've seen more airpower demos involving multiple units in the last two years than I did in the previous 10.
One thing I've noticed with military airshows in the Midwest is that most of the bases and units that once held annual events are still holding airshows, they're just doing it on a semi-annual basis now (every 2-3 years in most cases). To me, this strikes a nice balance between good local community outreach/recruiting and how these units and bases use their resources. It costs a lot of time and money to put on an airshow. Holding one every couple years keeps the airshow lineup fresh while not overtaxing (for lack of a better word) base and unit resources.
Most of the airshows I know of that have gone under in the Midwest have done so because of the loss of key sponsorships due to economic impact independent of defense, or because of loss of community support. The cost of putting on an airshow is rising. It costs more to book warbirds, hotels, buy fuel, get insurance, etc. than it used to. The loss of a key sponsorship because a particular industry is tanking hurts. Another show that went under didn't reach their projected attendance totals and didn't make back the money they invested in the show. It happens.
I don't buy that airshows and warbirds are being "killed." There are real concerns, but my observation in the Midwest is that there is plenty of support for warbirds and airshows and I think the support will continue to be there provided the economy allows for it. However, there may be areas of the country where that support just isn't there.
My biggest concern on the future of warbirds and airshows is that the price point for ownership and involvement will continue to skyrocket. Warbird ownership is being priced out of the range of the little guy. I don't see nearly as many individuals making the jump from T-6 ownership to a fighter, nor do I see as many individuals with a stable of 3-5 warbirds as I used to. This might just be a local anomaly, but it seems that there are fewer people who fall between owning a single warbird and the über collections financed by billionaires. There are obviously avenues to being involved through museums and organizations, but what happens when the financial backers of these organizations are no longer with us? Are these organizations sustainable without significant financial backing? We're already seeing how this might play out with Paul Allen/Vulcan/FHCAM. Maybe that's a bad example because they didn't tour with their aircraft, but I think it might be a sign of what's could happen elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see what all of this looks like in 2021 or on the other side of the pandemic. I have doubts that there will be shows at military installations next year. I have seen museums and organizations adapting to continue to provide socially-distant events though and I think some of the things that are being tried will continue on the other side of the pandemic. Tri-State Warbird Museum, for example, held a members-only fly day recently. A membership costs $35. What a great way to give a perk to your members and hopefully gain more long-term members that will continue to support the museum. I would consider becoming a member of a museum for 2-3 opportunities to attend a members-only fly day of museum aircraft per year. That would give me an excuse to visit multiple times per year, which I might not otherwise do for a museum a couple hours away. I have also seen several museums doing exclusive, members-only types events with high price points. Hosting a small flying event exclusive to members and with a high price point might be attractive in some areas and could serve as nice little fundraisers for museums moving forward. Do a number of these small events replace an airshow? I could see an argument for holding more of these types of events, which involve a lot less work and financial risk than putting on a major airshow. The tradeoff is that you're catering to people who are already interested in your organization and willing to spend a significant amount of money on that interest as opposed to exposing the organization and warbirds to more of the general public.
I could also see the drive-in format becoming attractive as well. The problem becomes whether you charge by person or vehicle and how expensive it becomes to pay for the best spots for photography. I'm not paying $175 to sit by myself in front of my car even if I can bring my own food and drinks. That price point might work for the family of five that would otherwise spend that much in tickets/parking/food/drinks however. I'd rather personally rather go to the general admission show where I can earn my spot just by showing up early.
I guess I meandered pretty far from the original topic here. Just some further things to think about.
From looking at Air Force almanacs dating back to the 1988 BRAC, we can see the reduction in Air Force inventory. I used 1988, 2005 (final BRAC) and 2019 for comparison:
1988
USAF - 7496 aircraft
ANG - 1730 aircraft
AFRC - 492 aircraft
Total - 9718 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... igures.pdf
2005
USAF - 4273 aircraft
ANG - 1313 aircraft
AFRC - 400 aircraft
Total - 5986 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... s_figs.pdf
2019
USAF - 4015 aircraft
ANG - 1015 aircraft
AFRC - 324 aircraft
Total - 5354 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... issue5.pdf
From this we see roughly a 45 percent reduction in USAF/ANG/AFRC inventory over the last 30 years - coincidentally pretty close to the same amount of time I've been attending airshows. I count about a dozen aircraft types listed in the 1988 inventory that are no longer in service (and there's probably a lot more than that). I could not immediately find a similar source for US Navy or USMC Aviation and didn't look for a source on US Army or Coast Guard inventory, but I would expect to find similar reductions in each service.
It would seem to make sense that this reduction in inventory would result in fewer aircraft being available for airshows. Just as importantly, there are fewer different types of aircraft available to make appearances. We don't have Prowlers, Intruders, S-3s, A-7s, F-117s, etc. anymore because we now have aircraft types that are performing multiple roles. The Super Hornet and its various models fill roles that were once held by a number of different types of aircraft. An airshow in 1988 (or even 2005) could justify spending more on hotel rooms, etc. to bring in the different types of aircraft that fill these roles. I remember going to airshows as a kid in the 90s and seeing Skyhawks, Intruders, Prowlers, F-14s, T-2s, S-3s, C-141s and even a FB-111. Now, is it worth spending to bring in multiple squadrons of Super Hornets that look the same but fill a different mission role? Is that the best use of an airshow budget or military flight hours?
I do think military support for airshows recently in my area has been great. I'm seeing a lot more local squadron involvement than 10 years ago. When bases and units have put on shows, they have coordinated well with other local units to get more military aircraft flying in their airshows. Ten years ago, we'd see one ACC or TAC Demo and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds and that was it (at least around here). I've seen more airpower demos involving multiple units in the last two years than I did in the previous 10.
One thing I've noticed with military airshows in the Midwest is that most of the bases and units that once held annual events are still holding airshows, they're just doing it on a semi-annual basis now (every 2-3 years in most cases). To me, this strikes a nice balance between good local community outreach/recruiting and how these units and bases use their resources. It costs a lot of time and money to put on an airshow. Holding one every couple years keeps the airshow lineup fresh while not overtaxing (for lack of a better word) base and unit resources.
Most of the airshows I know of that have gone under in the Midwest have done so because of the loss of key sponsorships due to economic impact independent of defense, or because of loss of community support. The cost of putting on an airshow is rising. It costs more to book warbirds, hotels, buy fuel, get insurance, etc. than it used to. The loss of a key sponsorship because a particular industry is tanking hurts. Another show that went under didn't reach their projected attendance totals and didn't make back the money they invested in the show. It happens.
I don't buy that airshows and warbirds are being "killed." There are real concerns, but my observation in the Midwest is that there is plenty of support for warbirds and airshows and I think the support will continue to be there provided the economy allows for it. However, there may be areas of the country where that support just isn't there.
My biggest concern on the future of warbirds and airshows is that the price point for ownership and involvement will continue to skyrocket. Warbird ownership is being priced out of the range of the little guy. I don't see nearly as many individuals making the jump from T-6 ownership to a fighter, nor do I see as many individuals with a stable of 3-5 warbirds as I used to. This might just be a local anomaly, but it seems that there are fewer people who fall between owning a single warbird and the über collections financed by billionaires. There are obviously avenues to being involved through museums and organizations, but what happens when the financial backers of these organizations are no longer with us? Are these organizations sustainable without significant financial backing? We're already seeing how this might play out with Paul Allen/Vulcan/FHCAM. Maybe that's a bad example because they didn't tour with their aircraft, but I think it might be a sign of what's could happen elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see what all of this looks like in 2021 or on the other side of the pandemic. I have doubts that there will be shows at military installations next year. I have seen museums and organizations adapting to continue to provide socially-distant events though and I think some of the things that are being tried will continue on the other side of the pandemic. Tri-State Warbird Museum, for example, held a members-only fly day recently. A membership costs $35. What a great way to give a perk to your members and hopefully gain more long-term members that will continue to support the museum. I would consider becoming a member of a museum for 2-3 opportunities to attend a members-only fly day of museum aircraft per year. That would give me an excuse to visit multiple times per year, which I might not otherwise do for a museum a couple hours away. I have also seen several museums doing exclusive, members-only types events with high price points. Hosting a small flying event exclusive to members and with a high price point might be attractive in some areas and could serve as nice little fundraisers for museums moving forward. Do a number of these small events replace an airshow? I could see an argument for holding more of these types of events, which involve a lot less work and financial risk than putting on a major airshow. The tradeoff is that you're catering to people who are already interested in your organization and willing to spend a significant amount of money on that interest as opposed to exposing the organization and warbirds to more of the general public.
I could also see the drive-in format becoming attractive as well. The problem becomes whether you charge by person or vehicle and how expensive it becomes to pay for the best spots for photography. I'm not paying $175 to sit by myself in front of my car even if I can bring my own food and drinks. That price point might work for the family of five that would otherwise spend that much in tickets/parking/food/drinks however. I'd rather personally rather go to the general admission show where I can earn my spot just by showing up early.
I guess I meandered pretty far from the original topic here. Just some further things to think about.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:36 pm
No, it's not a safe, or correct, assumption.
There were plenty of events in the late 1990s, post BRAC-era.
I know, I was a part of a couple.
What hurt them was...in no particular order...
-Post 9-11 security restrictions
-Increased ops tempo (i.e. real work) due to deployments
-Obama-era budget cuts (not trying to be political, but the military got larger percentage of cuts than the other govt activities).
In summary: fewer people, fewer bases, less money...what do you expect?
And airshows aren't dead, they are just every 2 to three years.
Some bases (especially smaller ones) had that policy long before BRAC.
And Reno that Military open houses in the U.S. are free. Not the case overseas. At RAF bases (and likely in other countries), people had to pay. Even at USAF events on RAF bases.
There were plenty of events in the late 1990s, post BRAC-era.
I know, I was a part of a couple.
What hurt them was...in no particular order...
-Post 9-11 security restrictions
-Increased ops tempo (i.e. real work) due to deployments
-Obama-era budget cuts (not trying to be political, but the military got larger percentage of cuts than the other govt activities).
In summary: fewer people, fewer bases, less money...what do you expect?
And airshows aren't dead, they are just every 2 to three years.
Some bases (especially smaller ones) had that policy long before BRAC.
And Reno that Military open houses in the U.S. are free. Not the case overseas. At RAF bases (and likely in other countries), people had to pay. Even at USAF events on RAF bases.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:11 pm
thanks for the replies.
I see some do not agree and thats fine i just was curious as I was doing some studying on the subject. I just wanted to clarify a few things maybe I did not explain properly:
The base closure act caused a lot of aircraft to go to the boneyard. The most obvious being the B-52, and all B-52G models retired. Many of Castle AFB B-52s went to the boneyard and they are still there. I have a friend that lives in Merced CA. He said he misses seeing the B-52s flying and he even told me that since the base closed it brought an odd negative evolution for the surrounding area. He also explains that after the base closed it also impacted the local economy and that even art deco buildings built in the 50s and 60s were torn down as well. the end of the cold war and the base closure act brought the retirement of many aircraft.
What I'm trying to get at is that with these bases closing it brought the end to the airshows that used to be held there. with everything gone the local community also lost interest in aviation because it wasn't in their backyard anymore to witness. Willow Grove used to have a large airshow, now gone forever because the base has since closed. Yes there are plenty of airshows still out there but some of the old school base held shows are gone.
Question: can anyone tell me if any base held airshows provide static displays of every U.S. military aircraft on inventory(or most)?
I see some do not agree and thats fine i just was curious as I was doing some studying on the subject. I just wanted to clarify a few things maybe I did not explain properly:
The base closure act caused a lot of aircraft to go to the boneyard. The most obvious being the B-52, and all B-52G models retired. Many of Castle AFB B-52s went to the boneyard and they are still there. I have a friend that lives in Merced CA. He said he misses seeing the B-52s flying and he even told me that since the base closed it brought an odd negative evolution for the surrounding area. He also explains that after the base closed it also impacted the local economy and that even art deco buildings built in the 50s and 60s were torn down as well. the end of the cold war and the base closure act brought the retirement of many aircraft.
What I'm trying to get at is that with these bases closing it brought the end to the airshows that used to be held there. with everything gone the local community also lost interest in aviation because it wasn't in their backyard anymore to witness. Willow Grove used to have a large airshow, now gone forever because the base has since closed. Yes there are plenty of airshows still out there but some of the old school base held shows are gone.
Question: can anyone tell me if any base held airshows provide static displays of every U.S. military aircraft on inventory(or most)?
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:21 pm
JohnB wrote:Question: can anyone tell me if any base held airshows provide static displays of every U.S. military aircraft on inventory(or most)?
Not that I am aware of. You get a pretty decent cross section of USAF planes at almost any base open house, but everything that is a thing of shows long past. Oshkosh maybe comes close. If you could go to a Air Tattoo event in Europe you could see a lot of Euro hardware for sure!
Tom P.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:24 pm
kalamazookid wrote:I would think the general reduction in the number of aircraft in the inventory has had much more of an effect on airshows than BRAC. It might be fair to say that BRAC and the reduction in the inventory are directly tied together, but I don't follow defense news closely enough to make an educated statement on that.
From looking at Air Force almanacs dating back to the 1988 BRAC, we can see the reduction in Air Force inventory. I used 1988, 2005 (final BRAC) and 2019 for comparison:
1988
USAF - 7496 aircraft
ANG - 1730 aircraft
AFRC - 492 aircraft
Total - 9718 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... igures.pdf
2005
USAF - 4273 aircraft
ANG - 1313 aircraft
AFRC - 400 aircraft
Total - 5986 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/Magazin ... s_figs.pdf
2019
USAF - 4015 aircraft
ANG - 1015 aircraft
AFRC - 324 aircraft
Total - 5354 aircraft
Source - https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads ... issue5.pdf
From this we see roughly a 45 percent reduction in USAF/ANG/AFRC inventory over the last 30 years - coincidentally pretty close to the same amount of time I've been attending airshows. I count about a dozen aircraft types listed in the 1988 inventory that are no longer in service (and there's probably a lot more than that). I could not immediately find a similar source for US Navy or USMC Aviation and didn't look for a source on US Army or Coast Guard inventory, but I would expect to find similar reductions in each service.
It would seem to make sense that this reduction in inventory would result in fewer aircraft being available for airshows. Just as importantly, there are fewer different types of aircraft available to make appearances. We don't have Prowlers, Intruders, S-3s, A-7s, F-117s, etc. anymore because we now have aircraft types that are performing multiple roles. The Super Hornet and its various models fill roles that were once held by a number of different types of aircraft. An airshow in 1988 (or even 2005) could justify spending more on hotel rooms, etc. to bring in the different types of aircraft that fill these roles. I remember going to airshows as a kid in the 90s and seeing Skyhawks, Intruders, Prowlers, F-14s, T-2s, S-3s, C-141s and even a FB-111. Now, is it worth spending to bring in multiple squadrons of Super Hornets that look the same but fill a different mission role? Is that the best use of an airshow budget or military flight hours?
I do think military support for airshows recently in my area has been great. I'm seeing a lot more local squadron involvement than 10 years ago. When bases and units have put on shows, they have coordinated well with other local units to get more military aircraft flying in their airshows. Ten years ago, we'd see one ACC or TAC Demo and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds and that was it (at least around here). I've seen more airpower demos involving multiple units in the last two years than I did in the previous 10.
One thing I've noticed with military airshows in the Midwest is that most of the bases and units that once held annual events are still holding airshows, they're just doing it on a semi-annual basis now (every 2-3 years in most cases). To me, this strikes a nice balance between good local community outreach/recruiting and how these units and bases use their resources. It costs a lot of time and money to put on an airshow. Holding one every couple years keeps the airshow lineup fresh while not overtaxing (for lack of a better word) base and unit resources.
Most of the airshows I know of that have gone under in the Midwest have done so because of the loss of key sponsorships due to economic impact independent of defense, or because of loss of community support. The cost of putting on an airshow is rising. It costs more to book warbirds, hotels, buy fuel, get insurance, etc. than it used to. The loss of a key sponsorship because a particular industry is tanking hurts. Another show that went under didn't reach their projected attendance totals and didn't make back the money they invested in the show. It happens.
I don't buy that airshows and warbirds are being "killed." There are real concerns, but my observation in the Midwest is that there is plenty of support for warbirds and airshows and I think the support will continue to be there provided the economy allows for it. However, there may be areas of the country where that support just isn't there.
My biggest concern on the future of warbirds and airshows is that the price point for ownership and involvement will continue to skyrocket. Warbird ownership is being priced out of the range of the little guy. I don't see nearly as many individuals making the jump from T-6 ownership to a fighter, nor do I see as many individuals with a stable of 3-5 warbirds as I used to. This might just be a local anomaly, but it seems that there are fewer people who fall between owning a single warbird and the über collections financed by billionaires. There are obviously avenues to being involved through museums and organizations, but what happens when the financial backers of these organizations are no longer with us? Are these organizations sustainable without significant financial backing? We're already seeing how this might play out with Paul Allen/Vulcan/FHCAM. Maybe that's a bad example because they didn't tour with their aircraft, but I think it might be a sign of what's could happen elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see what all of this looks like in 2021 or on the other side of the pandemic. I have doubts that there will be shows at military installations next year. I have seen museums and organizations adapting to continue to provide socially-distant events though and I think some of the things that are being tried will continue on the other side of the pandemic. Tri-State Warbird Museum, for example, held a members-only fly day recently. A membership costs $35. What a great way to give a perk to your members and hopefully gain more long-term members that will continue to support the museum. I would consider becoming a member of a museum for 2-3 opportunities to attend a members-only fly day of museum aircraft per year. That would give me an excuse to visit multiple times per year, which I might not otherwise do for a museum a couple hours away. I have also seen several museums doing exclusive, members-only types events with high price points. Hosting a small flying event exclusive to members and with a high price point might be attractive in some areas and could serve as nice little fundraisers for museums moving forward. Do a number of these small events replace an airshow? I could see an argument for holding more of these types of events, which involve a lot less work and financial risk than putting on a major airshow. The tradeoff is that you're catering to people who are already interested in your organization and willing to spend a significant amount of money on that interest as opposed to exposing the organization and warbirds to more of the general public.
I could also see the drive-in format becoming attractive as well. The problem becomes whether you charge by person or vehicle and how expensive it becomes to pay for the best spots for photography. I'm not paying $175 to sit by myself in front of my car even if I can bring my own food and drinks. That price point might work for the family of five that would otherwise spend that much in tickets/parking/food/drinks however. I'd rather personally rather go to the general admission show where I can earn my spot just by showing up early.
I guess I meandered pretty far from the original topic here. Just some further things to think about.
thank you for the thoughtful and informative info. very interesting.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:29 pm
wendovertom wrote:JohnB wrote:Question: can anyone tell me if any base held airshows provide static displays of every U.S. military aircraft on inventory(or most)?
but everything that is a thing of shows long past.
Tom P.
that in itself is the point im trying to make.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:35 pm
one note : the Chanute Air museum folded. Didn't they mention they lost a lot of support since the base closed???
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:17 pm
They must have, although the NMUSAF was all too happy to take most of the planes back.
Just to update: The guy who scrapped everything but the C-133 got sentenced to 2 years in jail for scrapping a bridge in Indiana that allegedly wasn't his to scrap, but the charges for selling off the F-105 ejection seats were dropped. The city had a $5.75-million deal to sell off the hangars; the buyer changed his proposal seven times and finally backed out of the deal. Haven't been able to find out who ended up scrapping the C-133.
Long time no hear, Nathan - how's the HUP coming along?
Just to update: The guy who scrapped everything but the C-133 got sentenced to 2 years in jail for scrapping a bridge in Indiana that allegedly wasn't his to scrap, but the charges for selling off the F-105 ejection seats were dropped. The city had a $5.75-million deal to sell off the hangars; the buyer changed his proposal seven times and finally backed out of the deal. Haven't been able to find out who ended up scrapping the C-133.
Long time no hear, Nathan - how's the HUP coming along?
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:13 am
wendovertom wrote:JohnB wrote:Question: can anyone tell me if any base held airshows provide static displays of every U.S. military aircraft on inventory(or most)?
Not that I am aware of. You get a pretty decent cross section of USAF planes at almost any base open house, but everything that is a thipresng of shows long past. Oshkosh maybe comes close. If you could go to a Air Tattoo event in Europe you could see a lot of Euro hardware for sure!
Tom P.
Tom
Your quote got mixed up, I did not ask that.
But I do have a suggested answer...Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
Years ago, I flew, a warbird there for the Open House, all the services were well represented. But the 89th kept both VC-25s locked in the hangar.
Re: Base Realignment and Closure killed airshows and warbird
Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:14 am
The chilling effect for post 9/11 security measures cannot be overstated.
Not only the additional expense of providing the security required, but the inconvenience to attendees. I took the local AFB's show off my list, as either a participant or attendee after spending four hours standing in the sun to get through the gate. Fortunately we could see at least part of the airshow from the line.
Also the elimination of the casual and organic interaction with aviation in general driven by current security measures. For two decades now, anyone with an interest in aviation has been unable to personally participate, or follow up after a show in any real fashion. Not merely airshows, but an entire generation has been cut of. General Aviation has suffered greatly. Unless you had a parent with an airplane, the chances of anyone under 40 getting involved are slim to nil. Without that interest, attendance falls off too, making any airshows or displays even less viable, and less likely for a venue to want to participate. Sponsors no longer can count on the numbers and pull out.
Not only the additional expense of providing the security required, but the inconvenience to attendees. I took the local AFB's show off my list, as either a participant or attendee after spending four hours standing in the sun to get through the gate. Fortunately we could see at least part of the airshow from the line.
Also the elimination of the casual and organic interaction with aviation in general driven by current security measures. For two decades now, anyone with an interest in aviation has been unable to personally participate, or follow up after a show in any real fashion. Not merely airshows, but an entire generation has been cut of. General Aviation has suffered greatly. Unless you had a parent with an airplane, the chances of anyone under 40 getting involved are slim to nil. Without that interest, attendance falls off too, making any airshows or displays even less viable, and less likely for a venue to want to participate. Sponsors no longer can count on the numbers and pull out.
Last edited by shrike on Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.