• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Court rules against Airline History Museum

By General Aviation News Staff · April 21, 2021 ·

The Airline History Museum, which has been at Kansas City’s Wheeler Downtown Airport for 35 years, is in a fight with Signature Flight Support.

In a petition at Change.org, museum officials note: “The Airline History Museum and Lockheed Constellation have been a landmark of Kansas City since 1986. 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.”

But officials with Signature Flight Support say the court fight is over and the FBO won.

“While Signature Flight Support would not typically comment on a legal matter, we feel it’s important to clarify statements made by the Airline History Museum (AHM) regarding the organization’s former leasehold at the Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport,” officials said in a statement sent to General Aviation News.  

“AHM filed a lawsuit against Signature Flight Support and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, requesting the court to find, among other things, that AHM is a third party beneficiary of the master lease between Signature Flight Support and the city, which expires in December 2035. However, it was the determined by the court that AHM was not a third-party beneficiary of the master lease and that the termination date of AHM’s sublease with Signature Flight Support was Dec. 31, 2020.”

“Furthermore, FAA airport grant assurances require AHM be charged fair market value for the space it occupies at the Downtown Airport. One of the issues in the ongoing legal dispute between Signature Flight Support and AHM is AHM’s failure to pay rent for at least a year,” the statement continued. 

“While we support AHM’s mission to memorialize aviation history, the circumstance surrounding its sublease on airport property are substantially more complex than portrayed by AHM and recent media coverage.”

Attempts to reach museum officials for comment were unsuccessful.

The petition at Change.org remains up, with more than 6,800 signatures as of April 21, 2021.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Ed says

    April 22, 2021 at 7:33 am

    Signature will not see my dollars.
    I planned to make a two-minute stop on their ramp to pick up a fellow Marine Corps Aviator, a 93 year old WW2 veteran, for a lunch at an East Coast destination. I called ahead to see what the charges would be, noting that we had no choice as to what location on the field could be used, that we would be in a Cessna 182, not a King Air or a Gulfstream. $85. I eventually talked to a mucky-muck up the line and shamed him into waiving the fees “this time”.
    Disgusting!

  2. John Carroll says

    April 22, 2021 at 5:10 am

    Isn’t it obvious that Signature’s ultimate purpose is to secure the space used by this non-performing asset, to generate some future and additional revenue stream, and at the expense of the museum and the local community?

    I do not truly understand the political intent of providing the third party consideration, not without talking to people and seeing the original lease agreement. But it seems likely that the local authorities wished to preserve that cultural landmark.

    It seems odd that the court would rule so, but I can only guess at these things. The situation is somewhat typical of previous struggles, but further information is required.

    • MICHAEL A CROGNALE says

      April 22, 2021 at 6:35 am

      It is Signature. They are in it to make money. They don’t care about anything else. People are willing to pay for the convenience of their locations. That’s why they get away with outrageous fuel prices, tie down and landing fees. I know personally that some Signature locations will charge a fee, in the hundreds, if you merely taxi on to the ramp, drop off and depart. I sincerely hope that AHM appeals but Signature has deep pockets and can afford to fight it out.

      • Mike says

        April 22, 2021 at 8:52 am

        Hopefully they all can come together and works things out. That building the museum is in is where TWA pilots were trained initially. It is mostly all TWA stuff from what I remember inside.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines