Signature Flight Support reportedly pushing Airline History Museum out of existence

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
Pasted from the Airline History Museum's Facebook page:

Airline History Museum at Kansas City Wheeler Downtown airport, needs your help. Signature Flight Support wants to close the museum. Why...You might ask? Well we don’t know. We are written into the master lease and are a tenant through 2050 as part of that lease. Signature does not pay rent to the city for our property but are demanding that we pay rent to them.

For years there have been tens of thousands of square feet of empty hangars which Signature controls. With the removal of the VOR, there are acres of vacant land to build new hangars. There are areas that are rented out for non-aviation use, yet Signature is pressuring the museum to vacate.

So we need your help to ask the Aviation Department - WHY? Why is the Aviation Department and the City allowing this? Why has the Aviation Department and City Council allowed Signature to take $500,000 meant for our museum? Why does Signature refuse to return $61,500 in wrongfully collected rent.

Please ask City Councilwoman Teresa Loar, teresa.loar@kcmo.org - WHY? Please ask Director of Aviation for KCMO Patrick Klein, Pat.Klein@kcmo.org - WHY? Please ask Wheeler Downtown Airport Manager Melissa Cooper, Melissa.Cooper@kcmo.org - WHY? Please ask Signature – WHY?

This isnt a request for money or donations, this is a request to bring awreness to the fact that the Airline History Museum is written into the new 2005 Master Lease to remain at its current location "as long as it remains a non-proft", however Signature is trying to use the terms of a termninated sublease from 2000 in an attemt to pressure the musuem to close. The Kansas City Aviaiton Department has acknowledged the situation and agreed with the AHM but will not step in and right the wrong.

We cannot allow a Large Corporation to bully the city and our museum.

https://fb.watch/31rdtI9a26/
 
If they are in the right, why wouldn't they just get a lawyer to place some smack-fu on Signature? Why the social media play?
 
Why get a lease covenant if you're not willing to pay a lawyer to defend your rights? Just put your museum any old place then and get bullied around? This makes no sense to me.

I would think if there are lease rights being trampled, a lawyer would know who to complain to to get signature to go away. I would expect any manager of a museum to know this and employ one.

I guess I smell fish.
 
The Museum, so far, not really told any of the story (and I don't know what it is). The videos and their social media posts are cryptic about what's going on and appear to be designed to just drum up an emotional response without providing any real information about the nature of the dispute with Signature. In a thread on a local FB group, I noted this concern and was promised "more was coming." Presumably the recent post and video was the "more," though it still fails to offer any real substance about what's going on. I'm no fan of Signature, but there's got to be a "story" here, and the fact the Museum has, so far, declined to tell it suggests that the story doesn't favor the Museum. And frankly, as much as the museum has some neat stuff like the Connie, it's really kind of an eyesore at the airport these days. It's got potential, but so far nobody has been able to unlock it.
 
schmookeeg said:
If they are in the right, why wouldn't they just get a lawyer to place some smack-fu on Signature? Why the social media play?
Click to expand...


Inside City hall they probably see Signature's expansion collecting more tax revenue for the city and create jobs, power needs to be equalized to get an equatable outcome for the Museum in both court and City Hall.

Constituent support provides courage to city leaders.

The one thing the political arm of City government respects more than money is getting re-elected. The museum needs popular support.
 
Last edited:
NordicDave said:
In the end it's political and social media put heat back to the City to for the right decision. Inside City hall they probably see Signature collecting more tax revenue for the city and create jobs, power needs to be equalized to get an equatable outcome for the Museum in both court and City Hall.
Click to expand...

If I have a lease that is valid through 2050, the decision has already been made, and I don't play the social media game until 2048 at the soonest, as the critters in office will be completely different by then, and a new decision looms.

I am happy to spend my aviation outrage to benefit a museum if they are being wronged, I just don't think this is how a wronged museum would act. This is how a museum who botched their lease arrangements would act when they got eventually called on it by a Signature or other interested party.
 
Why did the museum pay $61,500 in rent they weren’t required to pay?
 
Quoted below is from a comment on the Airline History Museum's Facebook page, posted a couple hours ago.

I still have so many questions. It sounds like the city leased a big chunk of the ramp and hangars to Signature, who then subleased to the museum. And now, it seems like Signature is putting the screws to the museum, I'd assume to try to force them out and make more money on the space.

The museum seems to think they have rights to their hangar and ramp over and above their sublease from Signature.

I'd certainly rather see the museum stay. And I don't necessarily like the idea of a private company leasing out public space (although that's been beat to death in other threads).

The museum's Facebook post from the OP is incredibly confusing. The linked video doesn't help matters.

Is anyone close enough to this situation to shed more light on it? For starters, what is the "$500k abatement" that the museum references?

I emailed Pat Klein and the others mentioned on your post. Here is a cut and paste of Pat's response to me - received this morning - which I will comment on in a separate comment.

"Thank you for reaching out to express your interest in aviation in Kansas City and the future of the Airline History Museum.

We value the role the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport has played in Kansas City’s storied aviation history since being dedicated by Charles Lindbergh in 1927.

The City of Kansas City, Missouri Aviation Department owns and operates the 695-acre Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport where the Aviation Department leases property to businesses and entities. As is common at airports around the country, some tenants sublease all or portions of their leased space. The Aviation Department is not directly involved with subleases, although the Aviation Department has previously made efforts to facilitate discussions between Signature Flight Support and the Airline History Museum.

The Aviation Department leases space to Signature Flight Support and Signature Flight Support has subleased space to the Airline History Museum. The City of Kansas City Aviation Department is not a party in that lease nor is the Airline History Museum a party to the lease between the City of Kansas City and Signature Flight Support. While the City of Kansas City was named in a lawsuit, it was dismissed as a party. As such, the City of Kansas City cannot comment on this ongoing legal dispute between Signature Flight Support and the Airline History Museum.

For further information you are welcome to contact the Airline History Museum and/or Signature Flight Support.
cid:image002.png@01CFA284.59C3A310
Pat Klein
Director of Aviation
Aviation Department
City of Kansas City, Mo.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
And frankly, as much as the museum has some neat stuff like the Connie, it's really kind of an eyesore at the airport these days. It's got potential, but so far nobody has been able to unlock it.
Click to expand...

I looked on Google maps, and it seems like the hangar itself is in OK condition, and the only aircraft outside is the L-1011. Is it the L-1011 that makes it look like an eyesore? Or do they normally have other aircraft outside?

The video that the OP linked also talked about the "CAP shack," which is just North of the museum? Is that tied into all of this as well?
 
I have been to that Museum and enjoyed it. I believe they are trying to get that Connie flyable again.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I have been to that Museum and enjoyed it. I believe they are trying to get that Connie flyable again.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it will ever fly again.

It was awesome when it did fly, though. There was more than one time that the car behind me would honk after the light had changed and I was too busy with my head out the window watching the Connie instead of the light.
 
What exactly is signature doing? Raising rent? Wasn’t the rent price set in the master agreement?
 
schmookeeg said:
If they are in the right, why wouldn't they just get a lawyer to place some smack-fu on Signature? Why the social media play?
Click to expand...
I don't know any more than what's posted on this thread and the video.

That said, it appears they do have lawyers and there's an ongoing lawsuit. But 1) lawyers aren't magical beings who can waive a wand and make everyone do what they're supposed to; 2) sometimes lawsuits take a long time and the wronged party doesn't have the resources to sustain; 3) sometimes parties with greater resources take advantage of 2 in order to prevail, regardless of whether they're in the right; and 4) the more angles from which you can attack a problem like this, the more likely you are to succeed. Lots of other reasons.
 
fasteddie said:
I looked on Google maps, and it seems like the hangar itself is in OK condition, and the only aircraft outside is the L-1011. Is it the L-1011 that makes it look like an eyesore? Or do they normally have other aircraft outside?
Click to expand...

The Connie is pushed out of the hanger occasionally for events. The TWA Museum has two aircraft parked outside on a different ramp, and I could see how people might confuse the two museums.
 
Lindberg said:
I don't know any more than what's posted on this thread and the video.

That said, it appears they do have lawyers and there's an ongoing lawsuit. But 1) lawyers aren't magical beings who can waive a wand and make everyone do what they're supposed to; 2) sometimes lawsuits take a long time and the wronged party doesn't have the resources to sustain; 3) sometimes parties with greater resources take advantage of 2 in order to prevail, regardless of whether they're in the right; and 4) the more angles from which you can attack a problem like this, the more likely you are to succeed. Lots of other reasons.
Click to expand...
It seems to me the museum is at more disadvantage than that. I don’t know what the monthly rent the museum paid was, but it’s obvious they have been paying it for years. Their position becomes a little weak for that fact alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top