Aircraft for sale at Gatwick Museum.

Re 39

Peter Mills

From the start you have completely misunderstood my comment. I did NOT respond to post 24. The clue lies in my phrase ‘revamped museum’.

My response was to ALL the comments that went before (Re 37), that dealt generally, with the re-organisation of the museum.

With respect, I think that your answer was ‘knee jerk’ and delivered without too much consideration.

I wish the museum every success.

I hope that everyone at GAM has a great season; many organisations would have capitulated under the challenging circumstances that you have faced. Continue to meet the issues head on and I’m sure that you will have great prospects for many years to come!

I would just like to say that I have been to GAM twice and thoroughly enjoyed both visits,Everybody I spoke to was extrememly friendly/helpful and I do sincerely hope that they manage to get planning permission this time round.
I will definitely visit again asap.

I am impressd that John Green is so familiar with the financial arrangements at the museum, perhaps he could enlighten me……

Sarcasm can often be viewed as hostility. As we so frequently see, anything posted on the internet can, and will, be misinterpreted.

Thank you for the explanation Peter.

Moggy

OK,

had intended to let this thread follow its natural course and submerge into the depths.
However, I feel that I need to answer fully the responses made as to my “hostile” response and my apparent sensitivity.

Post 24 asked a reasonable question, to which JG gave an authoritative, definite reply, sadly it was inaccurate. The word yes at the start of his response I believe reasonably took to be the answer to the dismantling of the Shackleton. It is often the case that a response that is inaccurate becomes almost fact if it repeated or read by many people. I don’t post that often but do feel obliged to post whenever I see comments or statements that I know are wrong and in which I have knowledge and or expertise.

The second part of the response implied that the museum would be unlikely to survive unless it attracted sufficient visitors to cover its outgoings. A statement of the obvious delivered in a particularly unpleasant form of words, my interpretation. Fortunately that is not the case at GAM. Now it may be that the posters command of the English language and grammar is as poor as my own and the way in which the statement was framed was not quite what was meant. I have no intention of publishing the fine detail of the museums accounts here to satisfy some measure of decision as to who gets support. We are not complacent, we have plans to offer events and collaborations to attract more visitors to the museum. The museum outgoings are very few, we own the site, no rent. As a charity we are entitled and do claim 80% rebate on rates for the building that we occupy, all of our staff are unpaid volunteers. The bottom line is that we have a commercial company whose profit is to be used to ensure that the museum stays financially viable for the next 79 years (the remaining life of the trust).

For those who are interested, we are in contact with the local planning dept and expect to submit a new application in the next few months.

I would like to thank those that understood both the implications of the post and my initial response, one or two may have misread or misinterpreted the words used, as may I.

The museum re-opens on Saturday the 5th of April and I can assure everyone that you will be welcome and will find a bunch of friendly and knowledgeable people, all are welcome even our detractors. (we have much local experience in that area!).

You know, I didn’t see the response from Peter Mills as being hostile. I spent many years fielding similar questions, and after a while, it is very easy to get a bit exasperated by it all.

However, GAM, like many others will need a USP to keep the people coming through the door. You know what though; they have one – they run a number of aircraft, and maintain them in a condition which could, if they continue, keep them alive for many more years than similar museums that leave their aircraft outside to rot.

Bruce

Re 35

Rich,

I read the half a dozen or so opening comments on this subject which seemed to indicate a revamping and regeneration of the museum which, in the normal course of events indicates a cost implication.

My guess was that most museums – if they make an entrance charge, would, for the sake of their annual accounts, count the paying public thru’ the turnstile. If the museum has been in business for a number of years then they will have/should have some knowledge regarding the number of paying visitors covering that time. It is then easy to make an educated guess as to how many paying visitors you are likely to see in this year and perhaps succeeding years. It is not an exact measure just an approximation.

Hence my question.

Any donation from me is not based on how much money they’ve got in the kitty. It is based on whether or not, from information gained about their operation, they are struggling to make ends meet. Which in my experience as a visitor tends to be quite a few. I’m not expert enough to know if they are doing a good job of preserving our aviation heritage. That is what they are there for and I accept that is what they are good at.

In spite of your comment (100,000 people) it is very necessary that plenty pf the paying public support these museums otherwise the liability falls on charitable benefactors whose well of charity might dry up

David Burke’s comment at 36 is absolutely correct.

Have a good shop and cafe ! An aircraft museum that exists on the notion that people just want to come and see aircraft won’t survive! It has to be the whole package -there have been far too many cases in this country of enthusiast run museums failing.

John,

I struggled slightly to understand the context of your first post (who or what does the “Yes, but….” refer to?) and the question itself can’t be answered. Its hypothetical. To predict accurately the future attendance at any museum would be a skill many of us would be interested in obtaining! Then your last post; your ‘non-controversial’ answer seems to want distinct financial information, and doesn’t really answer your first question about the future attendance figures anyway.

If you’re basing your (potential) donation on whether you think a museum is doing well financially and in terms of visitor numbers then I think you have the wrong outlook on things. I donate to projects and museums when I think they are doing a good job of preserving aviation heritage – in Gatwick’s case in the face of quite a bit of adversity from the local authorities – and not on whether 100,000 people have been through the gate.

It seems to me that of course they’re going to hope the paying public will attend.

Regards,

Rich

The tone of the response to John Green’s perfectly reasonable question is similar to the level of unfriendliness (no, make that downright hostility) that I experienced on my one and only visit to the Museum about 5 years ago. I never went back, nor am I ever likely to.

Re 26

I’m aware that many museums struggle to keep the doors open. If it wasn’t for the dedication of the mainly volunteers, many of whom work all hours to keep things afloat, some would simply have to close.

The answer to my question could have been along the lines of: “The last year for which we have accounts showed that 10,000 people paid £3 each to wander thru’ the museum, which has given the Trustees a small surplus for that year”.

A sensible and non controversial reply to a sensible and non controversial question. That’s all.

At that point museum supporters, of whom I am one, could have thought it a good idea to make a donation.

Yes, that kind of thing, it is best Peter comments on the current situation as I do not claim to know. My main point is that since the refusal all those years ago they have recently taken positive action in reducing the amount of airframes and also reducing the size of the building from their first application (don’t forget most existing “sheds” will be replaced with the new building), all of this to my understanding has been done on the advice of the local Council. The museum has been their many years and I would have thought with the passing of Peter Vallance, that GAM should be given fair opportunity in moving forward in a positive direction. Local attractions should be supported in this “modern age”. The world would be a sad place if it was all about commercial gain, I think councilers sometimes struggle to recognise genuine enthusiasts, they are always looking for the “real reason” for such hard work and dedication, yes a rare thing these days but should still be encouraged.

I take it the negative element was taken from Petes reply? GAM has had a lot to deal with over the last few months, maybe having had such negative comments from the Local Authorities over the years has left them a bit “sensitive” quite rightly so. Personally I think it is about time the collection was allowed to go under cover and move forward in a postive direction.

As I understand it, these “negative comments” involved refusal of planning permission for the museum.

I take it the negative element was taken from Petes reply? GAM has had a lot to deal with over the last few months, maybe having had such negative comments from the Local Authorities over the years has left them a bit “sensitive” quite rightly so. Personally I think it is about time the collection was allowed to go under cover and move forward in a postive direction.

Quite a hostile response John Re post#25…..

It seemed to me an unnecessarily hostile response to a simple question.

Moggy
(Personal opinion only. Nothing to do with moderation)

Re 26

I don’t know what you’re writing about. I asked a simple question – is there something wrong ? How can I be ‘familiar with the financial arrangements at the museum’, if I was, and they were sufficient, I wouldn’t need to ask the question. There is no need to be sensitive.

J31,
the answer is no, it is not dismantled fully. With the bad weather we were uable to get our heavy machinery close enought to complete the job. Now that the weather has relented (we were flooded three times in a couple of weeks) and we have the equipment in place it will re-commence in the next few days.

I am impressd that John Green is so familiar with the financial arrangements at the museum, perhaps he could enlighten me, as a museum trustee I would be facinated to know where this info can be found. I’ll give you a clue, Peter Vallance left all of his estate to the museum.

Yes, but will the paying public attend in sufficient numbers as to enable the revamped museum to pay for itself ?

Are there recent updates please? Is the Shackleton disassembled now? Thanks.