Our EAA chapter has hosted the B-17 several times, and we specifically asked for EAA to send the Tri-Motor out here as well. We got a response back that it is too far (West Coast) for the Tri-Motor to go.

I have to disagree with the EAA's decision. If the Tri-Motor is so popular that they added another airplane, then it is also popular enough that they can take advantage of its profitability at stops along the way here and back. There are 40 or 50 places between Oshkosh and Los Angeles where the Tri-Motor shopuld do very well. So it might take a month instead of two weeks, it would be profitable and promote part of EAA's mission.

The Tri-Motor fills a niche for an historic aircraft flight experience that is less than half of a B-17 ride, and represents a different historical era than warbirds do. It costs a lot less to operate than the B-17, and probably requires less ground and air crew.

$70 for a flight in the Tri-Motor is not excessive in my opinion. I agree the flight should be longer than 15 minutes.

To address Mr. Charpentier's post, the non-revenue flying hours for the Tri-Motor could be a lot less than the non-revenue hours for the B-17. There are more profitable venues in between major stops, it can oeprate out of smaller airports, and it will appeal to those thousands and thousands of people who cannot afford a B-17 flight. I think that the old Ford could be more profitable, reach out to more people, and spread EAA's message further.