MaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14486 times:
John Travolta has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the operators of the airport adjacent to his home lied to the FAA to prevent him from flying his 707 in and out. Travolta claims the airport operator falsely told the FAA the runway was not safe for a plane the size of the 707....
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14155 times:
Sounds like Travolta is going to end up owning an airport. He has a very strong case and the lawyers to push it. I seriously doubt he will walk away from this. The fact that he was given permission to use the airport and that he bought the land and built the house because of it only 6 years ago, and now the runway is "Unsafe" is not going to go down well.
It is interesting that he is suing in both state and federal courts. The latter suit could force the FAA to award the airport license to the new owner of the runway and property.
Also interesting is that one article noted that the runway is only 2 inches thick, which wouldn't survive even one landing of a 707 so I am looking forward to what the "inspection" shows. It sounds like a bunch of "good-old" boys got into a fight and made the very bad mistake of involving someone with a lot of money and a room full of lawyers. I am sure JT does not have "legal beagles" in his employ, but "legal pitbulls".
Note to MaidensGator -- please post any updates. After all, a man's hangar is his home, at least in this case. [yes]
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14029 times:
Quoting ClearedDirect (Reply 2): Looks like the last time he has been out of Greystone (Jumbolair) was back in January.
Wonder if Ocala (KOCF) is charging him landing fees?
I suspect he can afford it. More than likely they charge the tourists to look at it. "Yessir, Ladies and Gentlemen! This way to the John Travolta 707! Only $5, with children under ten free! Right this way!"
And if he has not been able to use Greystone for 7 months, as you suggest, I would guess he is really, really p#ssed.
When I was flying in and out of OCF regularly at the beginning of the year I used to see it there regularly also. A bit of an odd feeling being sandwiched in between that and a Kittyhawk 727F in my little PA28
Quoting Poitin (Reply 3): More than likely they charge the tourists to look at it
I was talking to the FBO who said they were having to be extra careful locking the automatic doors onto the apron because of people wanting to take a look at it.
Took this as I taxied past it:
"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12649 times:
It'll be interesting whether the actual inspection of the runway scheduled for early August (mentioned in the 2nd article linked above) confirms/refutes the contention the condition of the asphalt on the first 1,800 feet of the 7,550 foot runway is as bad as the airport operator claims. If it is, FOD would be a legitimate concern, especially at the beginning of the takeoff roll., and a 707 takeoff could make it worse for -all- aircraft.
Several years ago at SAN, a L-1011 tookoff from runway 27, and the jetblast picked up pieces of asphalt (in the displaced landing threshold area) and sent them flying. They immediately closed the runway for temporary repairs, but at a single runway airport (airline aircraft couldn't use 13-31 which existed back then), even a 2-3 hour closure was an operational pain in the arse, and diversions to LAX, ONT, LGB, LAS, and PHX ensued.
If the inspection of 17FL shows the runway condition there is not as dire as reported, it gives JT's lawyers all the more ammo to use in court...
As far as the airport operator's comments about 17FL's runway being unsuitable for a 707, it also has to be acknowledged (which I don't think he's doing) that JT's 707 isn't operating anywhere near it's maximum structural takeoff or landing weights, and weights are another factor in runway suitability. If JT's 707 was operating 10 daily flights in/out with 150 passengers (yes, I know it's not configured for that many), that'd be more wear-and-tear on the runway than his aircraft operating in/out with 10-20 passengers once or twice a week.
ZOTAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11663 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): JT's 707 isn't operating anywhere near it's maximum structural takeoff or landing weights,
Unless the Weight and Balance for the plane has been redone, I don't think that argument would hold up since the plane can go up to the max structural weight and day that JT feels like it. If JT had the Max Gross Weight lowered though, then that argument would probably work quite well.
I remember a thread talking about how BA lowered the Max Gross Weight on some 757's so they wouldn't be charged more pricey landing fees when they weren't anywhere near the max gross weight. I'm assuming JT could do the same right?
ManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1192 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11461 times:
How often does JT fly his 707?
Personally I think he should park it and get himself something a little less environmentally damaging (if he needs an aircraft at all). Sure its nice to see a 707 still flying around and looking fantastic but I wonder if he is not being a tad irresponsible in terms of how much mileage he does in the gas guzzling beast.
MaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11301 times:
As I mentioned in the thread opener, the dispute between Jumbolair and Garemore has been going on for nearly two decades. Last year, a Florida court ruled against Jumbolair in one of their ongoing lawsuits. After that judgment was entered, Travolta tried to intervene in the case, but was not allowed to because his request was untimely, final judgment having already been entered. Hence, these recent lawsuits by Travolta. Jumbolair is currently appealing the judgment in favor of Garemore. If anyone is interested, I've posted a copy of the Garemore/Jumbolair judgment at the following link. It gives a pretty good history of the property dispute.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10599 times:
Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 9): Unless the Weight and Balance for the plane has been redone, I don't think that argument would hold up since the plane can go up to the max structural weight and day that JT feels like it. If JT had the Max Gross Weight lowered though, then that argument would probably work quite well.
True, but you're missing my point, which was that even though the aircraft may be capable of the max structural takeoff and landing weights, JT's past use in/out of 17FL has been at much lower weights given the aircraft's configuration, and thus less wear-and-tear on the runway. Now, he if he goes and tries to cram 150 folks into it, that's a different story.
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9315 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 6): If the inspection of 17FL shows the runway condition there is not as dire as reported, it gives JT's lawyers all the more ammo to use in court...
More than that, why did the owner of the airport give him permission to use the airport in 2001 and then allow him to use it for 5 more years? My bet is on JT and his pack of lawyers. While not a slam-dunk, it will probably be an easy win, particularly given the airport was originally designed for a 707, and it was used for years by JT without damage -- or at least reported.
The case reads like a bad movie script but it is interesting that both parties admit JT has rights to use the airport. Now, all of a sudden, he can't land his 707 on it. It really is a case where two good-old boys and one ex-wife are playing games with each other and they made the very bad mistake of p#ssing off a man with lots of money and lawyers. Garemore is gonna lose big time. At best, he will have to upgrade the runway to take N707JT, and at worst, JT will have to fix his new runway himself.
ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1634 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
John should rebuild a B36 and take off from there on his way out of town. Their windows would still be falling out a year from now and they would be eating off of broken china and dealing with half-mad dogs and cats forever.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5108 times:
Quoting MaidensGator (Thread starter): John Travolta has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the operators of the airport adjacent to his home lied to the FAA to prevent him from flying his 707 in and out. Travolta claims the airport operator falsely told the FAA the runway was not safe for a plane the size of the 707....
They knew full well he would be using the runway for his 707. They built the place specifically for 707s. If anything, they have a duty to make sure the runway will work for 707s
Quoting Poitin (Reply 1): Also interesting is that one article noted that the runway is only 2 inches thick
Someone is FOS
Quoting Ha763 (Reply 4): How can the Garemores say the runway wasn't designed for 707s when the reason why the runway was built was to accomodate 707s owned by Arthur Jones?
Quoting Beau222 (Reply 14): Why did he make such a large financial investment (His Home) on "Verbal Agreements"?
He didn't. You can't execute a deed on a "verbal agreement" and you can't run an HOA, which is what Jumbolair really is, on a "verbal agreement". Even if there was some sort of oral agreement, he has relied on that runway for more than 5 years and any claim to the contrary for him to use his 707 there would be estopped. This thing with the FAA is just their way around directly breaching the contract they have with Travolta.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss