.
I hold the CAF in very high esteem for all the good work they have done for many years, in many ways the pioneers of the warbird movement, however I do hope they consider the path they are going down very carefully.
Quote:
The CAF is pressing on with the lawsuit to establish ownership, based upon the release of claims received after the initial conditional donation. We wouldn't be spending all this money if it didn't seem there was a better chance of winning than losing
I suspect near 100% of those who litigate have the same view before the court case, and at least 50% of them find that chance of winning wasnt as great as it first seemed.
I have always been concerned that the legal advice to proceed with litigation often comes from a person who stands to get paid regardless of the outcome.
I also think the CAF's letter of offer, while being honest and open, may have represented an unacceptable arrangement for the USAF to accept.
Quote:
In a written proposal, hand-delivered to the Air Force History Department in Washington D.C., the CAF proposed to drop its appeal and let the ruling in the trial court stand, in exchange for allowing the CAF to retain physical possession of the F-82 in the USAFM’s Loan Program. The same loan program is used across the country for static Air Force owned aircraft at aviation museums.
The proposal submitted by the CAF states, “This proposal is put forth in the spirit of trying to put this unpleasant disagreement behind us….. Although we still disagree with the position of the Air Force to not allow its vintage warbirds to fly, we would prefer to continue this discussion through persuasion versus litigation.”
It reads to me that the CAF confirm they dont agree with the court decision of USAF ownership, and would continue to dispute the USAF's decision not to permit the aircraft to fly (through persuasion), faced with those "terms and conditions", the offer or proposal didnt offer the USAF much other than avoiding an Appeal Case, and that would only present problems and costs to the USAF if they were to loose.
I am therefore not surprised the USAF chose not to accept the proposal and risk the agreement formed from that futher undermining the USAF's ownership and control - better to recover the aircraft and close the books on this existing agreement.
Also better in terms of not setting precidents across all the other conditional donation/loans they have in place, and better to let the courts decide.
I am sure the USAF legal advice gives them the same view that
We wouldn't be spending all this money if it didn't seem there was a better chance of winning than losing, and they have deep pockets and a Trial Judge who has already agreed with them.
It is sad that both parties are now going to consume further resources, time, effort fighting in court rather than investing that into their heritage projects, it is also sad that this will drive further long term wedges between the two organisations.
Hopefully the CAF can recognise the USAF ownership and respect their decision not to permit it to fly, and explore a trade etc to bring it out of USAF ownership? or secure a new loan and long term static display under USAF terms and conditions.
Hopefully the USAF will recognise the very important role the CAF plays in preserving and displaying examples of the USAF's wartime aircraft, and build a closer relationship than currently exists.
Hopefully if the relationship could be mended a new static display loan could be put in place?
Hopefully the forumites here can also come to recognise the "General" is simply doing his job as he sees it, protecting the interests of the USAF, and the assets owned by the US public?, its a pity to see personal attacks starting to come into the debate.
a sad development overall
regards
Mark Pilkington