Oh yes you are! You are proposing banning genuine vintage machines that do not conform to some un-defined standard, other than your Kerosene-fueled and new-build requirement. So, get off the fence and say what vintage types YOU would allow to fly!? :mad:
OAP

No I did not. I just suggested to add some newer airplanes for the more daily business to save the true classics.

Glad to hear that! :)

OAP

I have not changed my statements above. Strange interpretation.

Hi again!
I feel that your mistake is in the "why not build a new one for daily use". I could be happy with a new reproduction, but not a different aircraft with turbine engines, or any other non-original engines. How are you with the VR goggles?

OAP

Oh dear. :eek:
OAP

I see you updated this post.
OAP

Thats no "mistake". I said I'd hope for new built Ju 52s but to have a cheaper option I suggested Baslers as an alternative. No need to get emotional.

If you keep any oldie airworthy long enough you end up with just the serial number plate being original. That's neither the old airplane nor can it be flown and used like in it's glory days.

Building the same type new would give you some reliable all new frame that's good for daily use. This is what I suggested. At the same time you could keep the real oldies the way they were meant to be. With original structure and fabrication instead of using them and finally ruining them in everyday operations.

Personally, I think that you've lost the plot somewhat KK! :) A few years ago I flew through the Alps on a Lockheed Constellation. The reason was that although I had flown on many piston airliners in my youth, I had never flown on the Connie. For that reason I would never have wanted to fly on some modern reproduction or one powered by anything else other than the Wright Cyclones R3350 it should be powered by. Furthermore, I didn't care a hoot what sort of sortie it was flying. I simply wanted to fly on it. You seem to think that passengers fly on these aircraft purely for the scenic aspect of the flight. Believe me, a good percentage don't. They just want to fly on the genuine article of the type concerned.

'
 

@Kerosene Kraut.
"If you use oldies like these airline style you might consider building new ones or take something like Baslers, Twotters or Do 228s instead."

I quite strongly suspect that the Swiss aviation authorities will agree with Kerosene Kraut.

These golden oldies should not be permitted to operate as passenger flights without it being entirely clear that they are not part of the same industry that delivered worldwide ZERO jet airliner fatalities in 2017.

The Touristy or Traveling public should not be misled.

My friends daughter (a fairly novice Diver) is on holiday in Mexico. She is considering a tourist dive trip that will take her, to a depth that she has not been trained for, to see something that she has never seen previously.

My view is NO NO NO.

There are times to extend the envelope and there are times to say NO!

jimjim1, see my post #290. If sightseeing is the only goal, there are plenty of modern alternatives available (such as smaller and more modern aircraft and helicopters) at all these locations. No one is forcing the public to fly on an historical aeroplane. It's their choice. What diving to a depth your friend's daughter is not trained for has to do with this issue is beyond me. However, the same applies, no one is forcing her to do it. It's her choice!

When I paid to take a 30 minute flight on a B-17 several years back, I had to sign a release that basically said I understood this WWII vintage aircraft wasn't up to current safety standards. At least in the US, signing a similar release would be SOP before being allowed to fly on any vintage aircraft.
I know Switzerland isn't as lawyer obsessed as the US, but wouldn't there be a similar requirement for those who wanted to fly on the JU52?

They all do , but it is not an "out of jail card guarantee" if there is negligence , you'll end up in court , paper or no paper signed. Some vintage operations make you member of their association for one day, so that , as member , you are supposed to know the risks, That what we did with when my club had one ,
But all this is cosmetic if you get an accident. Hell will fall on you paper signed or not. and I would dare to say , even in the US.

As Hotel tango clearly sated , people will do ( and sign) anything to fly in those old aircraft, and basically they want the thrill and experience the perceived "danger" of flying like in the 1930's.
An Hybrid solution is what Lufthansa has done , kept the air frame but put more powerful P&W engines with modern instrumentation, and apply Lufthansa Technik maintenance standards., but that means the aircraft is very often AOG , for small things , like now...
The other big difference with Lufthansa is also they do not need to make money on theses operations..

One thing about liability waivers is that you can't sign away someone else's right to sue for their loss. Say this guy shows up for a vintage plane ride. They hand him a liability waiver, he signs it, they go flying, it goes badly. Wife of deceased sues for loss of companionship, loss of financial support, pain and suffering, all the usual. Defendant's attorney pulls out the waiver, plaintiff's attorney says "My client never signed an agreement not to sue". Which is correct. The defendant is not being sued by the person who agreed not to sue, they're being sued by his wife, and she never signed any agreement giving up her right to sue for her loss.

A Squared,
That depends entirely what country you are in.
Tootle pip!!

I guess money. Larger old BMW 132s engines are both very expensive and very hard to get if you can get 3 of them at all . And to put cheaper 3 P&W wasps with corresponding 3 blades props plus all the changes and fixes to adapt is also very expensive. .Lufthansa could do it, (but even that has limits ,(see the recent put on ice of their Constellation project ) but the small association could not ,especially with 3 birds.