http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002174.html
"Jett Clipper Johnny and Constellation"
Johnny sues so he can land safe at home
- Thread starter mikea
- Start date
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002174.html
"Jett Clipper Johnny and Constellation"
JohnR
Final Approach
The only difference between men and boys is the size of their toys.
This is just another version of some of the shenanigans that happen at private fly-in communities.
Gotta love that name, though - Jett Clipper Johnny. Maybe I'll get mine legally changed to that.
This is just another version of some of the shenanigans that happen at private fly-in communities.
Gotta love that name, though - Jett Clipper Johnny. Maybe I'll get mine legally changed to that.
pookies
Pre-takeoff checklist
Why would someone privately fly a 707 anyways??
Why would someone privately fly a Cessna 172, when they can just buy a ticket on an airline or, for shorter trips to places not served by airlines, a ticket on a Greyhound bus?
===
Travolta has a 707 because (1) he wants it, and (2) can afford it. He gets my vote as a hero for that. It is a beautiful, and beautifully-restored, plane.
By the way, the folks at an FBO at which Travolta does business said he was very polite.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Um, you mean Heroine. He's a woman now! LOL! (And yes, it's a cool plane, and she has my support!)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0427327/
kevin47881
Final Approach
"He originally built the main runway in the early 1980s to accommodate 707s owned by Arthur Jones. Travolta flies 707s, but Garemore said Jones' flights weren't as frequent and didn't deteriorate the runway as much."
"The bottom line of this whole thing is, it's a safety issue. The runway is not designed for a 707," Garemore said."
Anyone else see the contradiction here
Emphasis mine.
"The bottom line of this whole thing is, it's a safety issue. The runway is not designed for a 707," Garemore said."
Anyone else see the contradiction here
Emphasis mine.
JohnR
Final Approach
Because he can.
Tim
Line Up and Wait
K
KennyFlys
Guest
I paraphrase another famous remark: "I designed and built a runway to meet the requirements for use by a 707 before I determined the runway was not sufficient for safe use by a 707.""He originally built the main runway in the early 1980s to accommodate 707s owned by Arthur Jones. Travolta flies 707s, but Garemore said Jones' flights weren't as frequent and didn't deteriorate the runway as much."
"The bottom line of this whole thing is, it's a safety issue. The runway is not designed for a 707," Garemore said."
Anyone else see the contradiction here
Emphasis mine.
So, is he saying he unsafely and unwisely used that runway for a 707 in the past? Or, why wasn't the runway built sufficiently for continued use by such an aircraft?
I can build a runway on four inches of asphalt to sustain use by business jets for a period of time but that time will be limited with the lesser specifications. If I want it to last more than a sufficient period of time, I'd make it much thicker and probably concrete. So, did he poorly plan its use to start with?
On the other hand, with all that Travolta has invested there and his own wealth, he might even agree to cover the cost of repairs or even replacement for the benefit of everyone there. That would make him the winner even in compromise.
As far as his owning a 707, more power to him. I agree with Spike on this one. One should be allowed to do as they wish, own what they wish without impediments. Basically, one should be allowed to pursue their dream so long as they do not deprive another of their life, liberty or personal property.
That being said, Travolta has reportedly made statements in favor of global warming and how society and its citizens should be efficient energy users. I don't know the numbers but from what I've seen before I'm not sure I'd call the 707 an economically efficient aircraft. Clipper Johnny is a bit contradicted.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
He flys the 707 because he can't afford the Boeing 727.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
I think FedEx has all of those that are still worth flying.
Edit: I may be wrong about that. All of them may have been replaced by now with some Eurotrash.
Edit Two: Perhaps not...
Last edited by a moderator:
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
This is just shady on the Jumbolaire folks. Really shady. Wonder if someone offered them a bunch of money to get Travolta to leave or something.
Maybe it was Xenu??
Maybe it was Xenu??
pookies
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well, isn't there somthing ALOT smaller and goes just as fast? Oh wait! Its probably a compensation thing!
Even if I had a 100 billion dollars, I woudn't leisurely fly it. That is just a waste of fuel!!!!!
wbarnhill
Final Approach
"He originally built the main runway in the early 1980s to accommodate 707s owned by Arthur Jones. Travolta flies 707s, but Garemore said Jones' flights weren't as frequent and didn't deteriorate the runway as much."
"The bottom line of this whole thing is, it's a safety issue. The runway is not designed for a 707," Garemore said."
Anyone else see the contradiction here
Emphasis mine.
I'm not sticking up for Garemore, but I'm thinking that he's saying that ORIGINALLY, YES the runway was built for 707s, but due to deterioration from increased use by Johnny's 707, the runway is no longer safe for those kinds of operations.
My view? The homeowners and the runway owner had an agreement, the runway owner knew that Mr. Travolta owned and flew a 707 to his home there. I'd assume the homeowners pay into a fund to cover costs involved in maintenance of the runway, so why can't the owner keep it in a proper condition? If fees need to rise to cover the costs, then the homeowners can figure out how that should be addressed (i.e. if Johnny needs to pay the overhead since his toy is causing excessive wear). Seems easy enough.
tom clark
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 609
- Location
- St. Petersburg, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom Clark
Without knowing the politics there's no way to know what's going on. Obviously there's a battle over this airport. Garemore has already gotten a court to prohibit airport residents flying ANY size aircraft from accessing the runway. And now he's going after the only guy left with access. Obviously he wants out of his 1989 deal. I don't feel real sorry for him and I hope travolta kicks is butt. Wanna bet the lands worth a LOT more as something other than a fly-in community? Yeah, what are the odds. fwiw, tc
Frank Browne
Final Approach
Even if I had a 100 billion dollars, I woudn't leisurely fly it. That is just a waste of fuel!!!!!
If I had a 100 billion dollars, I'd own a Super Cub! And a DC-3...and a P-51...and a Grumman Albatross...and an F8F Bearcat and a ...........
Well, isn't there somthing ALOT smaller and goes just as fast? Oh wait! Its probably a compensation thing!
Even if I had a 100 billion dollars, I woudn't leisurely fly it. That is just a waste of fuel!!!!!
Tread this path very lightly, Pooks; there are no certificated general aviation aircraft for which one could not say that its use is not a "waste of fuel." Indeed, taken as a purely-rational play, one can quickly extinguish all but the most critical uses of GA:
> Why fly a jet, when you can fly a more-efficient turboprop?
> Why fly a turboprop, when you can fly a more-efficient cabin-class piston twin aircraft?
> Why fly a cabin-class piston, when a single would do the job adequately and more effciently?
> Why fly GA at all, when you can occupy a seat on a meat-tube, more efficiently?
> Why fly commercial, when a bus will get you where you are going just fine?
> Why travel at all, when (as we all know) travel is just a luxury- there is almost never a need to be anywhere, just varying levels of desire?
-------------
Seems to me that the answer is, we just have a big committee of really smart people decide when and where we can go, and implement laws to enforce their decisions, with all such choices based solely upon efficiency. We can call them Congress.
-------------
Joking aside, the key problem is and remains, that which is profligate and wasteful to one, may be a prudent and careful allocation of (admittedly greater) resources to another, and when we start allowing the establishment of arbitrary lines of demarcation at which the "prudent" use stops, and the "wasteful" use starts, we have then tacitly accepted a dangerous principle. At that point, we have the allegorical "camel's nose in the tent"; soon, you'll be kissing the camel goodnight.
I could be envious of John Travolta's extended financial resources, but what would be the point? He has one of the few remaining passenger-configured 707 aircraft in flying condition, and has restored it to stunning condition, besides. It is by no means his sole means of transport (he also flies a G-III!), and is certainly not a money-efficient way of flying either, so I guess he does it for love. That's so bad?
It simply pleases me that I can still see such a plane, in flying condition, just as it pleases me to see B-17s, and P-51s, and all manner of other historically-significant (and utterly without efficient utility) aircraft.
A 206 can carry as much as a 195, and uses a lot less fuel. Let's make Greg B ground his 195. Problem is, we ground a good chunk of our collective souls when we do something like that. Different scale, same exact thing.
I say, let the man fly his plane, for exactly the same reason I also say, let me fly mine.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Spike, well said.
JohnR
Final Approach
Beautifully put.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
I'm glad he flys a 707. I wish I could too.
Maybe he could help pay to fix the runway? Maybe I'm naive?
However, if Johnny Jet Boy or whatever his name is lectures me about global warming, I'll aim some 707 tailpipe emissions at him. Maybe it's ok to fly the 707 if he plants trees on some island in the Pacific, and ride-shares with Leo DiCaprio in his Prius?
Maybe he could help pay to fix the runway? Maybe I'm naive?
However, if Johnny Jet Boy or whatever his name is lectures me about global warming, I'll aim some 707 tailpipe emissions at him. Maybe it's ok to fly the 707 if he plants trees on some island in the Pacific, and ride-shares with Leo DiCaprio in his Prius?
N6399A
Pre-takeoff checklist
Spike, ................. You rock. Very well said!!!
t0r0nad0
Pattern Altitude
Spike, well said. There was an article about him in Private Pilot magazine a couple of months ago. The 707 is configured like a luxury business jet, and he apparently no longer has the G-III... it's been replaced with an Eclipse 500. I believe the article said that he would be doing some marketing/advertising for Eclipse as well.
alaskaflyer
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,544
- Location
- Smith Valley, Nevada
- Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
The only people "in favor" of global warming are the land speculators inland from the beaches.
AWACSEng
Cleared for Takeoff
Why fly a 707? Because it's a great piece of aviation history. Any aviation obsessed person would jump at the opportunity to aviate such a masterpiece if given the chance. If I had the financial ability, I would buy and opperate one as well. I know for me personally I am awe-struck by the 707 type. It gives me chills everytime I step to one knowing the history behind it.