Dear Signature Flight Support...

RyanShort1

RyanShort1

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
5,682
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
RyanShort1
Dear Signature Flight Support,

Regarding this events reported in this news story:

https://www.kmbc.com/article/airline-history-museum-hangar-downtown-airport/43594424

Perhaps you are right, and perhaps you have the moral justification for the decisions regarding the "Save A Connie" hangar, but this is a huge disappointment for those of us that appreciate vintage aviation. Even if you are morally justified, it makes you look uncaring and disrespectful of aviation history.

Please reconsider and change your policy to work with the museum folks in a positive manner and to avoid the historic aircraft being damaged.

Sincerely,
A frequent customer, who hopes that other POA members will also contact you.
 
I guess I am not shocked by this.

Whoever thought Signature was in this line of business because of a love of aviation woefully misjudged them. It appears to me that they are in it to milk it for everything it can, before GA goes out of business. So, if Signature saw a chance for money and took it, well, that is just par for the course imho.

For the record, this is definitely a lousy move for them to make.
 
I'm still waiting to hear more about the Signature operation in Canada that was running drugs out of the Dominican Republic.
 
Link to a thread on this from about two years ago.

Sounds like a complex situation regarding the lease. The city leases the airport out to Signature, who subleases it out to other tenants, including the Airline History Museum. There is a Master Lease Agreement, sublease agreements, amendments to those docs, etc.

From the Airline History Museum's site, they mention they lost a recent court case (which I assume was the catalyst for Signature locking the doors). They mention going in front of the judge for an appeal in May. Figured crossed that works out for them. Really hope they get some action one way or the other in May, and that it doesn't drag out.

Sounds like Signature has "no comment." More concerning, it sounds like the city hasn't done much to help the museum, or even weigh in on the situation.

I'd like to see the museum continue, but I anticipate it's going to come down to who's got the better lawyers, and in that case, it's Signature.

Dunno what will happen if this comes to pass, and the museum is evicted. They've got some nice aircraft in their hangar, with their Lockheed Constellation being the jewel of the collection.
 
As sympathetic as I am to aviation museums... and feeling pretty negatively on Signature...If the museum can't afford the phone bill, they probably can't afford to be a museum.

"Why is the phone disconnected?
It’s a matter of cost. The phone is very expensive on a monthly basis."
 
I based the 310, 414, and MU-2 at MKC. I suspect there's more to the story than "Museum good, Signature bad."

There are two museums at MKC. The TWA Museum (which is essentially in Signature's main FBO) and the Airline History museum on the other side of the airport.

The Airline History Museum to me seemed extremely poorly run, and had a great space that was not well utilized. Staff was very unwelcoming and did not appreciate children looking at airplanes (that's a major WTF to me for a museum like this). The TWA Museum seems to do a much better job. Being that MKC used to be the headquarters of TWA back in the day (my great uncle was actually a lawyer for them back then, long long time ago), both museums seem to cater towards TWA history specifically, but it never made sense to me that there were two largely overlapping museums, at the same airport.

Among the "assets" of the museum includes a Lockheed L-1011 (not in TWA livery) that just sits parked outside. People aren't allowed inside of it. I'm not sure why as this defeats the purpose of having such an asset. The engines were removed from the L-1011. Some of the first class seats have been removed and put in the museum to sit in, and I seem to recall seeing them try to sell other first class seats from that plane.

I could see Signature not wanting to support a museum that they see as being poorly run (I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed) and there may be other things at play.

Curious to see how this plays out.
 
Last edited:
It also seems like this conflict has been brewing for some time. A quick search shows related news stories stretching back a couple years.

To add, the AHM had another drama-filled incident where they were trying to get a 727 ferried from Seattle to Kansas City. After several years of waiting, the Seattle airport had enough and had the thing scrapped. Many similarities to the current situation in that there was a court case, frenzied facebook posts from the AHM, finger pointing, etc. https://www.facebook.com/N874AA

One gets the impression the AHM hasn't been easy to work with
 
I feel like there might be more to this story? Signature is not a museum. If I ran a parking garage or valet I wouldn't want a classic car museum rent free (?) in my space either.

Not necessarily jumping to defend Signature, but I haven't yet personally had one of these FBO horror stories that others seem to come across, including AOPA. I recently parked a little 172 over night at IFP and Signature couldn't have been nicer or more accommodating. There's no way the 20 gallons of gas I bought and the $7 fee for the night put them in the black. To me that cost is worth it vs sitting in a run down public transient ramp. I also had the audacity to park a run down '67 Aztec at LAX Signature last year and got the same treatment the Gulfstream guys got, for nowhere near the cost!
 
I went through the museum in 2005. Being able to walk through that Connie (which IMHO is the most beautiful commercial airliner ever) was a real treat. If that plane ends up as scrap, then somebody ought to be tarred and feathered.
 

Attachments

  • IMGA1036.JPG
    IMGA1036.JPG
    517.4 KB · Views: 50
  • IMGA0979.JPG
    IMGA0979.JPG
    552.9 KB · Views: 49
  • IMGA0977.JPG
    IMGA0977.JPG
    541.9 KB · Views: 50
  • IMGA0973.JPG
    IMGA0973.JPG
    556.8 KB · Views: 48
I would hope the collection gets sold rather than scrapped. Although I assume there aren't a whole lot of organizations out there with the resources to take on something like the Connie. Seems like the Connie, a DC-3, and a Martin 404 are the big aircraft in the collection, then a mix of smaller single engine aircraft and a large collection of various other artifacts.

The L-1011 that is sitting outside on the other hand, I have to assume that is going to get scrapped.

This comment on Reddit had some interesting perspective:

Regardless of the just legal reality, this is pretty sad to me. My grandfather was a founding member of the Airline History Museum, formerly called Save-A-Connie. He was a retired TWA Captain and flew Connies, eventually L-1011s & 747s. As a co-founder, he and other founders and members pulled the museum’s flagship Connie out of the desert, got her airworthy again, and flew it home to Kansas City for many more years of restoration efforts.

Once completed, he flew this Connie to hundreds of air shows over the course of the next 7 years or so. They acquired more historic aircraft, like a Martin-404. I was lucky enough to grow up running around the parts rooms in the original terminal, and the tarmac on the east side of MKC when the group was based at a hanger just off the terminal, which is now VML-YR.

After many of the founding members aged out of flying on a legit medical and subsequently the museum fundraising efforts slowed, this was the beginning of the end for the organization.

Since then, many people have managed and mis-managed the museum, it’s artifacts, and it’s finances. John Travolta even injected a **** ton of money in the org but it was all eventually used up on the purchases of other aircraft, and constant maintenance of their existing ones.

I have no idea who this Roper guy is (maybe a son of another founder) but he’s done a **** poor job since he stepped foot in the role, and it’s clear he has no idea how to drum up genuine support for the thing he claims to care about so much.
Click to expand...

The comment about John Travolta sent me down a rabbit hole to this article from 2011, detailing embezzlement from the museum. Sad to see, it sounds like for a brief time the museum had the ear of John Travolta and all the publicity that brings, yet kinda squandered the opportunity to capitalize on it.

There is an old saw about how family owned businesses often fail after the third generation of the family takes over. The first generation starts the business, the second generation builds and expands it, and the third generation, oblivious to the struggles of previous generations, runs it into the ground. Seems like there is an element of that with the Airline History Museum.

I've never had the chance to visit the AHM, but the issues sound similar to other aviation museums (and I suppose non-profits as a whole). Management more focused on empire building than fundraising, people treating the museum as some sort of old-boys club, being non-welcoming to new members, etc.

Those sorts of places do OK for awhile, especially as the airports they sit on were largely dis-used. As business aviation expanded however, and some of these formerly quiet airports begin to see more business, it's not surprising that these places get squeezed out.
 
I appreciate the desire to preserve aviation history. Unfortunately Signature is owned by a consortium of blue blooded private equity firms that likely would nuke every single airplane in the world if they thought it'd add a penny to their EPS. Such is the nature of the business they're in. Buy it, gut it, flip it for more $. Anything that stands in the way of selling their assets for a dollar extra is something they're willing to bulldoze.

Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the business they're in :(
 
If you run a business, and you're not trying to increase profits... you should probably be fired. As others have stated, this probably isn't as simple as Signature being the villain and going after the museum heroes. The museum saying the planes would have to be dismantled and sold for scrap wreaks of drama. There are museums and/or individuals that would buy these planes and give them a good home. I know of someone who might want to make the Connie airworthy again!
 
Racerx said:
As sympathetic as I am to aviation museums... and feeling pretty negatively on Signature...If the museum can't afford the phone bill, they probably can't afford to be a museum.

"Why is the phone disconnected?
It’s a matter of cost. The phone is very expensive on a monthly basis."
Click to expand...
I offered to set up a new phone system for them. There's no reason it would need to cost them more than the cost of a couple of hamburgers per month. And I'm talking about McDonald's, not some steakhouse burger.
 
A few things in the article don't make sense to me. The "city" gave them the hangar rent-free, but the landlord is Signature? Who actually owns the building?

The fact a court sided with Signature I think is telling.
 
I’d rather see a bunch of small aviation museums, even with only one or two planes, than large collections that are few and far between. Seems at first glance that fundraising and volunteer staffing might be easier because it would be much more local, and less is needed.

Another issue was mentioned, also - organizations being good old boys clubs. If the leaders really care about the organization, they’ll welcome new members, listen to their ideas, treat them as peers from Day 1 and get them involved.
 
DaleB said:
I offered to set up a new phone system for them. There's no reason it would need to cost them more than the cost of a couple of hamburgers per month. And I'm talking about McDonald's, not some steakhouse burger.
Click to expand...
Right?! That comment on their site really stood out. We just got a new phone system and it was peanuts. But if you cant pay for phones, you cant pay for a lawyer (even if they are in the right), and if you cant pay for a lawyer you represent yourself and the man who represents themselves has a fool for a client.
 
This whole mess is less about Signature (which, to be clear, I do not like and generally avoid doing business with) and more about a poorly run operation that is an absolute eyesore on the entire Downtown airport in KC (where I keep a plane). Outside, the Museum looks like a poorly-kept junkyard (and that's probably being generous). The parking lot is a disaster, there are several old shipping containers/trailers stored in it, the L1011 is rotting outside, and the other side of the building is full of piles of other junk. I haven't been inside in years, but last time I was there, it was poorly lit, messy, and generally unwelcoming (not to mention not having regular hours, etc.). My understanding is it has a very poor relationship with the local FAA office as well (which certainly impedes efforts to restore and eventually fly museum assets). The gem of the collection is, of course, the Connie, which will never fly again if we're being realistic. Last I heard, it needs a heavy maintenance check that nobody with the museum is qualified to perform (and they can't afford to pay a third-party). It hasn't flown in, I think, like 20 years, and I'm not sure it's even been ground run in the last 5-10. For the museum itself at least, the Connie is a lost cause. Maybe there's a buyer out there for it that'll fix it up and fly it, but the pool of folks qualified to work on and fly it is likely extremely tiny at this point.

The City of Kansas City is shockingly supportive of aviation as a whole. The Downtown airport gets lots of city support, with a nice (free) General Aviation terminal and the cheapest self-serve gas in town. Given the friendliness to aviation, ask yourself why the City isn't intervening here to help the museum. And if the museum can't pay a phone bill, how's it going to actually operate, even if it doesn't pay rent?
 
Tantalum said:
I didn't get that part either
Click to expand...

The City owns the entire airport.

Signature holds a "master lease" for nearly the entire airport property, save for a few small areas (Atlantic being one of them). Signature subleases the portion of the airport that it does not use for its own operations to a variety of other tenants.

At one point, the lease between Signature and the City said that so long as the AHM occupies the AHM space (which is part of the property Signature leases), Signature doesn't have to pay rent for that part of the airport and Signature promised (in the lease) not to charge the AHM rent for the space.

In 2019, the lease between Signature and the City was amended, and (1) the City started charging Signature rent for the AHM space and (2) the lease provision that required Signature to let the AHM use the space for free was deleted (which makes sense, given that Signature now had to pay for the space).

Since Signature now has to pay the City rent for the AHM space, Signature told the AHM that it had to start paying rent to Signature.

The AHM refused and a lawsuit started.

The AHM lost. Signature evicted the AHM.

The AHM has appealed, which is still in progress.
 
Thanks! Honestly that sounds entirely reasonable to me

Why should any entity that owns a thing have to offer it for free? If the city offered it for free then the city should pay the rent to signature, otherwise signature has every right to collect it from the tenant
 
bradg33 said:
The City of Kansas City is shockingly supportive of aviation as a whole. The Downtown airport gets lots of city support, with a nice (free) General Aviation terminal and the cheapest self-serve gas in town. Given the friendliness to aviation, ask yourself why the City isn't intervening here to help the museum. And if the museum can't pay a phone bill, how's it going to actually operate, even if it doesn't pay rent?
Click to expand...

This is very true regarding KC being extremely friendly aviation. MKC was by far the best airport I was based at. My only, literally only complaint was that it was too far from my house (which is obviously not the airport's fault).
 
bradg33 said:
In 2019, the lease between Signature and the City was amended, and (1) the City started charging Signature rent for the AHM space and (2) the lease provision that required Signature to let the AHM use the space for free was deleted (which makes sense, given that Signature now had to pay for the space).

Since Signature now has to pay the City rent for the AHM space, Signature told the AHM that it had to start paying rent to Signature.
Click to expand...


This makes sense. However, AHM's website says:

The sublease of Hanger 9 to AHM, is spelled out in the Master Lease Agreement, dated 2005 (see below). In 2009 the City Council made a 2nd Amendment to this Master Lease, allowing AHM use Hanger 9 rent-free through 2035 (City Ordinance 090370). Both Signature and the City agreed to this, and Signature received financial benefits from the City for allowing the Museum to remain in Hangar 9.
Click to expand...

If the city had made a commitment for rent-free use through 2035, how did they have the ability to change it in 2019? I can understand why AHM, incompetent management concerns aside, would feel shafted.

Obviously there must be more to the story, but it seems to me that the city is the instigator of the issue, not Signature.
 
Half Fast said:
I can understand why AHM, incompetent management concerns aside...
Click to expand...
The question is how much of management's time and money is tied up just trying to maintain a location? Maybe incompetence isn't so much the issue as time and resources?
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks! Honestly that sounds entirely reasonable to me

Why should any entity that owns a thing have to offer it for free? If the city offered it for free then the city should pay the rent to signature, otherwise signature has every right to collect it from the tenant
Click to expand...
Me thinks the city and Signature both want AHM gone. Realizing they are no longer really a museum. So they decided to amend the lease terms. Gives Signature an out to charge rent, talk about a sweetheart deal squandered by the museum. Gives the city a way to clean the place up and increase revenue.
 
It's a shame honestly.
 
Half Fast said:
If the city had made a commitment for rent-free use through 2035, how did they have the ability to change it in 2019? .
Click to expand...

Without being privy to the sublease agreement, I would suspect the sublease is very carefully worded stating as long as signature isn't charged rent by the city, AHM won't be charged rent from Signature through 2035.

AHM doesn't have a lease with the city. So when both the city and Signature agreed to a new lease it pretty many much voided the free rent to the museum.
 
bradg33 said:
Outside, the Museum looks like a poorly-kept junkyard (and that's probably being generous). The parking lot is a disaster, there are several old shipping containers/trailers stored in it, the L1011 is rotting outside, and the other side of the building is full of piles of other junk.
Click to expand...

I mean, looking at the satellite view and street view on Google Maps, the parking lots don't seem that bad. I've seen similar areas at airfields in worse disarray. Some old storage containers, but it looks orderly (more or less).

The L-1011 does seem to be rotting out there. That's unfortunate, and I feel like if highlights one of the most glaring issues with the museum (in my opinion). They have a great collection: A Connie that was airworthy (at one point at least), a DC-3, the worlds last surviving Northrop Delta, A Martin 404 (also previously airworthy). They had flown the Connie and the Martin 404 on the airshow circuit for several years. They also appear to have a number of single engine aircraft, including a WWII era SNJ trainer. An impressive collection by any measure.

For some reason, they decided they wanted to expand into newer jet airliners. They got the L-1011 in 2010. They apparently were going to take possession of a cargo DC-8 (N41CK) in 2014-ish, but that fell through. They took possession of a 727 in Seattle in 2016, with the intent to ferry it to the museum, but that fell through and it was scrapped in 2021 (with it's own thread of lawsuits and the like). In 2020, they seemed to have expended a bunch of resources to rescue a De Havilland Dove (for who knows what reason).

Even while they struggled to care and maintain the collection they had, it seemed like they were on a tear to get as much iron on their ramp as possible. To what end, I have no idea. I can't imagine a L-1011, DC-8, 727, or Dove driving any kind of significant increase to their visitor count.

The more you read about this place, the more it sounds like the most recent dust-up will be the final nail in the coffin for the AHM, topping off many years of mismanagement.
 
Unfortunately to those outside of the aviation Community there's a very limited amount of public interest in old airplanes

A museum is a great idea but all these things cost money, people generally aren't willing to pay more than 10, 15, maybe 20 bucks for an entry ticket

There's a much larger community of classic car enthusiasts, and even in those case the best collections simply end up in private hands

You need to have oodles of disposable income and another revenue stream to keep a place like this purely as a passion
 
I would see the Connie flying around town every now and then, back in the day. I miss that plane, but it will probably never fly again. Maybe, if Elon buys it…
 
Matthew said:
I would see the Connie flying around town every now and then, back in the day. I miss that plane, but it will probably never fly again. Maybe, if Elon buys it…
Click to expand...
He'll just do the same he's doing to twitter...run it into the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top