English airport owners force out a museum

http://www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/disp ... ounded.php

So in order to keep the customers happy at a airport in the UK, it seems the land owners are wanting to remove and wipe out a museum by December..

The sad thing is the museum has had 3years to prepare for a fight..

Typical bastards in big business, tho money and greed for carparking wins out over heritage protection.

[mazdaP5]

That's a shame, it looks like a nice museum. Hopefully if they are forced out, another airport nearby can take them in.

[Mark V]

That's a shame, it looks like a nice museum. Hopefully if they are forced out, another airport nearby can take them in.

Sadly there are not too many airports around - this being the UK

[mustangdriver]

If it was up to the airlines, there would be no general aviation.

[GIJOE290]

That sucks!

[Django]

Boo hoo, the people flying in and out can't walk to their car.

[muddyboots]

If it weren't for commercial aviation, aviation museums like taht one, and general aviation would not exist. We al know that the vast majority of serivices they live of of are byproducts of commercial aviation.

So complaining that a museum has been driven out by an airports attempt to make money is like a child complaining that his mother won't let him suck her milk 'cause she has to cover her boob and go back to work.

[RMAllnutt]

They have some lovely aircraft at the museum. Some of them are not actually owned by the museum, like the airworthy Sea Vixen, but it will be a shame to see this museum close. Hopefully none of the exhibits will be scrapped!

http://www.aviation-museum.co.uk/frameset.htm

Richard

[mustangdriver]

I think you got it backwards. It there is no general aviation, you have no commercial aviation. You have to start flying in the small stuff before going on to thte big stuff. What is the last milestone to be set by commercial aviation? The Wright Borthers, Lindbergh, Yeager, Armstrong, Rutan. None of these people were airline pilots. Saying that without airlines, there is no general aviation is like saying without a greyhound bus, no one could drive. As an ex-employee of the airlines, I can say that the airlines are in no way part of what is good about aviation.

If it weren't for commercial aviation, aviation museums like taht one, and general aviation would not exist. We al know that the vast majority of serivices they live of of are byproducts of commercial aviation.

So complaining that a museum has been driven out by an airports attempt to make money is like a child complaining that his mother won't let him suck her milk 'cause she has to cover her boob and go back to work.

[n5151ts]

they could simply and easily fly them out to safety...

[Tigercat]

"I think you got it backwards. It there is no general aviation, you have no commercial aviation. You have to start flying in the small stuff before going on to thte big stuff. What is the last milestone to be set by commercial aviation? The Wright Borthers, Lindbergh, Yeager, Armstrong, Rutan. None of these people were airline pilots. Saying that without airlines, there is no general aviation is like saying without a greyhound bus, no one could drive. As an ex-employee of the airlines, I can say that the airlines are in no way part of what is good about aviation."

Very well put, mustangdriver!! Thank you for that posting.....I agree with you 100%!!


Ted

[muddyboots]

I think you got it backwards. It there is no general aviation, you have no commercial aviation. You have to start flying in the small stuff before going on to thte big stuff. What is the last milestone to be set by commercial aviation? The Wright Borthers, Lindbergh, Yeager, Armstrong, Rutan. None of these people were airline pilots. Saying that without airlines, there is no general aviation is like saying without a greyhound bus, no one could drive. As an ex-employee of the airlines, I can say that the airlines are in no way part of what is good about aviation.

If it weren't for commercial aviation, aviation museums like taht one, and general aviation would not exist. We al know that the vast majority of serivices they live of of are byproducts of commercial aviation.

So complaining that a museum has been driven out by an airports attempt to make money is like a child complaining that his mother won't let him suck her milk 'cause she has to cover her boob and go back to work.

Well then, what we should do is close them down and watch airports disappear as they have no financing. And avgas prices skyrocket due to low demand. And all of the techincal knowledge of flying, pilot skills, mechanic skills, and those oh so adorable stews will mostly go away, as they have litle inclination or ability to work for free. Oh, and when the airports close, so do the restaraunts and skymall, the travel agencies and the vast majority of world tourism.

ComAv supports that. Were it not there, you wouldn't be there. Your job would evaporate within years, driven out by high fuel prices and lack of support. You can't keep aviation skills current or exercised sitting on your couch looking at pictures of aircraft on the internet. You actually have to use them. The military wants those skills exercised for its reserves, and the government in general depends on those skills for a variety of reasons--most importantly to KEEP AVIATION in general afloat, because our economy is now heavily dependant on the ability to move goods, warm bodies, and services across the globe immediately.

No, I think we can safely say that Com AV is the reason we get to walk around in cool aviation museums. That a few get moved, closed or sold out is sad, but they would have never been there, as I said, without Com Av in the first place.

Milestones? Chuck yeager did exactly what for out GNP in all he years he flew? The wright brothers--they bought a bunch of jets and started a business based around the idea of shipping packeges oevrnight, which turned into a multi billion dollar industry and made Tom Hanks talk to a soccerball?

C'mon mustang. I know what your heart is saying, but my pocket book is saying the hard cold facts. Without Com Av's money, tehre would be no GenAv left. It would soon dwindle to grass runways, then ballons, then kites...then looking at the pretty pictures and wishing we had the skills to do that again.

[bdk]

Interesting perspective. Back when the airline industry was in its infancy right after WW2, it was said that you could run out of gas anywhere over the mountains surrounding the LA basin and could glide to a general aviation airport. What are the chances of that now?

Basically, as serious commercial aviation has grown, general aviation has suffered. In places like Alaska where commercial aviation is limited, general aviation thrives. I'm not saying that there is a direct cause and effect since obviously land values, population changes and other things play a part.

The infrastructure created by the FAA and the taxes levied are tailored for airline operations because that's where the big tax dollars are, yet they are a major impact to general aviation. Regulation is and always has been a negative influence on the viability of general aviation and smaller airports. Small private airports like Cable in Upland thrive despite big brother, but only because the family refuses to sell to developers.

MCAS El Toro is being made into dozens of golf courses (called "The Great Park") and Rialto was sold to developers by the city. These lands were gifted to the local governments by the feds and then sold off to support bloated county and city coffers.

http://www.aerofiles.com/airports-CA.html
http://members.tripod.com/airfields_fre ... lds_CA.htm
http://www.calpilots.org/html/article.php?sid=133

[JDK]

Bizarre. I'm agreeing with Mustangdriver AND bdk and NOT with Muddyboots, all on the same topic! Twilight Zone.

I think Mustangdriver's put it well.

It's not an either or scenario; we need both GA and airlines; however the list of charges against airlines in terms of general bad business practice and big business pressure is long, and evident in the US, Canada, the UK, much of Europe and Australia from my own understanding. GA isn't perfect or excused, but GA hardly ever puts pressure on the airlines, or could sustain the fines airlines (Like Qantas and British Airways, recently) take in their bloated stride. On the other hand the airlines are always pressurising GA, deliberately or accidentally, and in Europe, airline lobbying has certainly created pointless obstacles and costs for GA and warbird operations.

We need the airlines, and many of my friends and colleagues work in the business (as do many posters here) but like a government, I'd trust them as far as I could spit them.

Cheers,

[needle]

watch airports disappear as they have no financing.

Muddy......

Not quite true... .unlike the USA, the average UK GA pilot/owner/operator is already subjected to a "pay as you use" system, in the form of landing fees, (and ridiculously high fuel taxes) which help supplement the operating costs of the airports and the ATC system.

Julian