[NTex]

Wow, we really revived this thread. As a pilot needing a hangar and an airport manager working through a hangar wait list at a rural airport, I completely appreciate all the comments. Heres my 2 cents.

Governments are terrible at managing airports for many reasons. Usually it’s apathy or underfunding, but more times than not, its that governments are meant to provide services equitably to everyone. Airports must, by law, give priority to businesses that have the greatest economic impact. By contrast, the airport is required to charge everyone the same amount for equal space. Real Airport managers are bound by a lot more rules than you think. We must act as an enterprise fund and be separated from all other city funds( that makes the cities mad).
Every airport manager wants to build hangars right now. We know there is a shortage. We also know that there is a record number of pilots being trained that will want their own airplane and need a hangar in the next few years. Construction costs have increased so much that our breakeven point, with current rental rates, was 52 years. A 52 year losing streak is a very hard thing to sell when you are trying to find the 10% matching funding for a runway rehab. There are basicly no hangars available anywhere. Airports really struggle to keep the cost of general aviation as inexpensive as possible but there is only one solution to this.
All airport managers hate hangar wait lists for the exact same reason….because everyone needing a hangar is on 25 wait lists and it wastes a massive amount of our time. It’s not as easy as you think. Almost every current tenant has a request to be in a different building, so you have to make them the offer and wait 24 hours then move down the list calling and waiting for people who may not even have an airplane or a license. Then as soon as somebody moves, it seems like all the tenants try to figure out a way to be upset about it. I want everyone to have a hangar and I want to do it in a fair way. That’s why i have put 5 people in hangars while my own is tied down on the ramp while I wait for one.

All leases for land at airports in the grant program are required to be reversion leases. That means at the end of the term, the airport owns it. The FAA doesn’t want to spend millions on the runway then the airport sell the land around it. There is really only one solution, hangar rates have to go up to justify their construction.

A question for you guys….as an airport manager with an obligation to attempt to make a profit, do you allow an experimental with a rotax buying gas at the convenience store in the hangar or skip him for the Pawnee crop duster making a living and buying 10k gallons of fuel?

Or if a 48’ hangar came available and a rv12 was next on the list?



Under our current system, the hangar goes to the rotax.

Thanks for laying it out there, I am sure any government job comes with a lot of bureaucracy and compromises.

I'd just offer this quote from AOPA


[]The AOPA position on reversion clauses in leases is that although according to the Airport Compliance Manual (FAA Order 5190.6B)—which helps the FAA determine if airports are compliant with grant assurances—reversion is one acceptable way to terminate a lease, there are many approaches to terminating leases that offer alternatives more akin to a win-win situation while simultaneously ensuring that the airport continues to honor principles of self-sustainability.

Here's the link:

A candid reflection on FAA aircraft hangar leases and reversion policy

While the FAA offers extensive guidance for airport administration policy, particularly in terms of airport compliance, all too often there is much left to interpretation by both airport sponsors and airport users.

www.aopa.org

Cheers

 

[YellowJacket RV9]

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but generally when demand far outstrips supply, prices go up until things equalibrate a bit. When you have 200 people waiting for 20 hangars, upping the price should increase the incentive to build more hangars, sooner, and also maybe force out those who are not as serious about building or flying. And it removes some of the need to rely as much on fuel sales. Why are hangar rents as low as they are is the real question I guess. Flame away....

 

[Amadeus]

All airports should follow the wait list model of Sarasota SRQ airport. Very transparent. More often updates would be nice but SRQ has the best method I've seen.

 

[Amadeus]

Why are hangar rents as low as they are is the real question I guess.

Hangar rents are low? Perhaps in Death Valley or a Nevada nuclear testing ground airport.

 

[YellowJacket RV9]

Hangar rents are low? Perhaps in Death Valley or a Nevada nuclear testing ground airport.

I get it. They are outrageously high. But compared to demand, they are low. I hate it, too. But maybe higher prices would incentivize more hangar building, until a better equilibrium is reached. At the end of. the day, prices are nothing more than signals. Anecdotally speaking, the airports I have seen that have higher hangar prices also seem to be building more hangars. How many people would rather grudgingly pay $100 more a month to not be on a waiting list for 5 more years?

 

[rv12is]

I get it. They are outrageously high. But compared to demand, they are low. I hate it, too. But maybe higher prices would incentivize more hangar building, until a better equilibrium is reached. At the end of. the day, prices are nothing more than signals. Anecdotally speaking, the airports I have seen that have higher hangar prices also seem to be building more hangars. How many people would rather grudgingly pay $100 more a month to not be on a waiting list for 5 more years?

As it is, flying is already expensive enough that it's out of reach for a lot of people. If we want general aviation to thrive, this is an approach to be very careful about advocating for. Yes, making flying more expensive would cause fewer people to fly, and this would (at least temporarily) result in more hangars for the few who can still afford it. But, if we want general aviation to stick around, let's try to find ways to get more people involved... not fewer.

There's a T-hangar at my local airport for $700/mo. Add another $100/mo to that and that's a cost of almost $10k/year! At those costs, I'm guessing there's a lot of people on this forum who would decide they could no longer afford to fly.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

I am on list and they are 100 in front of me or people who have hangers have had them forever no turn over. Pretty tough to get a hanger . I feel for you. My situation is I will have to move or drive a long distance to get a hanger. There is nothing like a hanger, but they do make full plane covers. What a pain to take off and put on, but an option.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

This thread has drifted a bit from the OP's question. There are two issues here as I see it:

1. Lack of affordable hangars/cost of flying/etc.
2. Dishonest and/or inept airport management.

The OP was asking for advice dealing with the second issue, not the first.

Mine would be to keep copious notes (recordings if allowed under law), emails, letters, etc., and to escalate each time you don't get an honest response. Airport management, city or county commission with responsibility, city council, FSDO, FAA, your local Congressional office, etc.

The issue of the mythical "waiting list" seems to be one common element of the problem. The best solution there is for any such lists to be public, easily accessible (we DO have the internet these days), and to be adhered to. Not sure how to do that...but it will take persistence.

The other aspect is the non-aviation use of hangars. My airport *claims* that there's a very a high percentage (>90) that are aviation use, *but they don't count privately owned hangars*, which are a high percentage of the number of hangars, and which even a drive around the airport will show that a large percentage are NOT being used for aviation. FAA enforcement across the board would certainly help here. Private owners are notorious for having mysterious "waiting lists".

 

[YellowJacket RV9]

As it is, flying is already expensive enough that it's out of reach for a lot of people. If we want general aviation to thrive, this is an approach to be very careful about advocating for. Yes, making flying more expensive would cause fewer people to fly, and this would (at least temporarily) result in more hangars for the few who can still afford it. But, if we want general aviation to stick around, let's try to find ways to get more people involved... not fewer.

There's a T-hangar at my local airport for $700/mo. Add another $100/mo to that and that's a cost of almost $10k/year! At those costs, I'm guessing there's a lot of people on this forum who would decide they could no longer afford to fly.

I agree with the goal of expanding access. But lots of people out there would love to own a plane and are held back only due to a lack of hangar availability. If higher prices were what it took to spur on more hangar building, maybe that isn’t the worst thing. Obviously we should pursue other ways to keep costs down, like enforcing aviation use only. But any time prices don’t accurately reflect demand, shortages result. Laws of economics are just as immutable as laws of physics…

 

[Amadeus]

The best solution there is for any such lists to be public, easily accessible (we DO have the internet these days), and to be adhered to. Not sure how to do that...but it will take persistence.

In my post #53 I demonstrated how this may be done. SRQ Sarasota has a list for each size of hangar they have available eliminating the instance of someone's name coming up on a hanger too big or small for their needs. Each list has the current position on list displayed as well as the date when name was added to the list and the position when added.

I will post the link again HERE for all who missed it. We should all sit down with airport managers and pull up the SRQ Sarasota example for them to see how it is done correctly. They still may not want to do it this way as it could cut into their "buddy" system or "under the table" cash flow.

THIS is the list that I am on. I can see that I have moved up 78 spaces in 20 months. Not all airports experience this frequency of change but Florida does have quite the population of pilots losing medical privileges and aging out of flying.