Fly-In Aviation Museums

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
[point by point rebuttal snipped]

What he said (thanks Bob! Saved me a bunch of typing )

Certain aircraft collections belong at airports, because those collections
are still flying. But most collections no longer fly, nor is it even
reasonable to expect them to. Furthermore, there are lots of reasons
airports make BAD places for a museum, even an aviation museum.

What he said (thanks Bob! Saved me a bunch of typing )

Certain aircraft collections belong at airports, because those collections
are still flying. But most collections no longer fly, nor is it even
reasonable to expect them to. Furthermore, there are lots of reasons
airports make BAD places for a museum, even an aviation museum.

Okay, you win. There are many valid economic reasons for not basing
aviation museums at airports. Who goes to airports, anyway?

Heck, now that you mention it, why would we want all those people at the
airport in the first place? All those ground-pounders would probably just
get in the way. Let's make sure they stay away.

Although I understand your points, I think you've missed a few of mine.
Aside from the fact that fly-in museums are clearly better for pilots to
visit, they are also better for our ever-dwindling airports.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:uh6Jd.27202$eT5.10563@attbi_s51...
Okay, you win.

Yay!

Uh, what do I get?

There are many valid economic reasons for not basing aviation museums at
airports. Who goes to airports, anyway?

Fewer and fewer people these days. More important though, airports are
being pushed farther and farther out, as urban airports are closed so that
the land can be used for something else (housing, industrial development,
waterfront parks...)

If an aviation museum can afford urban property, that's where they'll be so
that the people who might come spend money at the museum can actually get to
the museum easily.

Heck, now that you mention it, why would we want all those people at the
airport in the first place? All those ground-pounders would probably just
get in the way. Let's make sure they stay away.

I don't think that keeping non-pilots away from airports is a motivation in
locating museums at sites other than airports. Nor do I believe that having
non-pilots driving to an airport would cause any serious trouble at the
airport (assuming the usual precautions to keep non-pilots off of operations
areas).

Although I understand your points, I think you've missed a few of mine.

Probably. But your statement seemed to imply that anyone putting an
aviation museum somewhere other than an airport is crazy, when in fact the
arguments for doing so that you proposed don't hold water, and when in fact
there are lots of good reasons for putting an aviation museum somewhere
other than an airport.

Aside from the fact that fly-in museums are clearly better for pilots to
visit, they are also better for our ever-dwindling airports.

It seems perfectly reasonable for an airport operator/manager who wants to
enhance traffic at their airport to go ahead and site a museum there, just
as they might want to put any number of other things at the airport that
don't necessarily NEED to be at an airport (like a restaurant). But that
still provides no argument for a person who wants to make an aviation museum
to put the museum at an airport. That person is in the business of deciding
what's best for the museum, not the airport.

Pete