Goodbye Ramp Queens

[AdamZ]

We all know them and have seen them at our airports. "Ramp Queens or Hangar Queens" Those planes that NEVER fly, Have flat tires, so much bird poop that the plane could be an add for a bird laxitive and about 1000 dead bees or flys between the windscreen and glare shield.

Those of us that don't own often think Hey if your gonna let that plane rot just give it to me to fly. Well I just realized its more than just an aviators sin to let your plane rot. Not only is it bad and in most cases fatal for the plane to let it sit there year after year, But its bad for GA as well.

For every Hangar and Tie Down that a Queen takes up at an airport like mine, it is a Hangar or Tie Down that can be leased to an owner who intends to fly his/her plane. It takes a spot of a plane that will purchase fuel, maintence and annuals, charts, headsets, Oil , and other GA supplies from the FBO.

These "Queens" Don't need anything but their spot. Thier hangars and tiedowns become like mauselieums (sp) or graves.

So heres the point. As we all know making Money in GA is hard enough. Profits for some of these FBOs are very thin. We can ***** and moan about FBO's and lack of service here and there. Yes there are folks out there that could care less about us little piston drivers. But on the whole Not only do the FBOs need us we need them. I for one make it a point to always get fuel at a Fly In if I can, or make a small purchase at an airport businness where ever I fly ( in my rented plane) even if its just a bottle of Soda and a new chart.

The rent that Ramp or Hangar Queens pay for thier tie downs spot just does not cut the mustard. In effect it actually takes money away from the FBO.

To that effect some local FBOs are considering charging resident owners a modest quaterly minimum Say $200.00 per quater. What owner wouldn't use that in fuel alone every 3 months. Heck most annuals would cover that. I'm not a big fan of fees but I say Do It. If it helps get ride of the Queens, opens up spots for active pilots and makes running an FBO or Mx shop more profitable it will be better for GA.

Did ya ever think that if running an FBO were more profitable we'd have more little guys in the biz for longer and you wouldn't have to be a national FBO chain that only caters to the corp turbine guys in order to make any money?

Just my thoughts. Tawk amongst yourselves as the lady said.

 

[Dean]

We have the same problem here at UUV. There is an A model Mooney that has not been out of it's hanger in 10 years. The owner lives in Florida and has paid more in hanger rent than what its worth. We also have a Piper Pawnee and a glider that has not been out in over 8 years. The owner got killed in a crash and his partner, who lives out of state, won't come and get them. So, people like me who would love to have an enclosed hanger has to rent a shade hanger.

 

[gibbons]

Same here. We have a PA18-140 sitting on three flats and without a prop. It's been on the ramp for at least 10 years. The owner (who's about 80) pays monthly fees and when asked about selling it (for parts) he just says, "I'm going to start flying again. It just needs a prop and air in the tires." I can't imagine how much work it would take to actually make it safe to fly.

So what's the answer? This old rivet bucket 140 makes the airport look run down and takes up space without contributing to the airport economy. What have other airports done to take care of this problem? It's not like we can just call to have it towed to impound.

Chip

 

[Anthony]

There is a hangar queen in my mech's shop. A Tiger that's been there for two years. It had an overhauled engine installed 10 years ago and has 20 hours put on it since.

 

[ausrere]

I know a lot of cities have junked vehicle ordinances. Any vehicle parked on a public street or visible from a public street (like drive ways or front yards) or on public property has to be currently registered, have a valid inspection and be in operable condition or the city will tow it. Has anyone ever heard of a similar law being used on those abandoned aircraft sitting on the ramps? Especially on city/county owned airports?

I'd think if a junked car sitting in someone's drive way is considered an eye sore, so would that aircraft gathering bird droppings on a ramp. Inside a hanger would be different though.

 

[AdamZ]

Well good questions folks. As I said some local FBOs have thought of charging a quaterly minimum, not an obscene amount mind you but an amount that a pilot who flys moderate hours would spend in Fuel, Mx supplies etc. over a 3 month period. This may prompt some of the folks who pay rent but have planes that rot to reconsider the price of letting their plane rot.

Its like going into a restaurant sitting there all night buying one drink and brining your own dinner. These FBO's must be allowed to make a profit.

I suppose some wealthy owners may pay the quaterly minimum and still let your plane rot.

I think that perhaps fields can create rules or clauses in leases for hangars or tiedowns that state that no plane may be based at the field that does not have a valid Registration, Airworthieness cert and current Annual, Or be activley pursuing a repair or annual.

 

[ejensen]

Our is a red Luscombe. Tied downed for at least 8 years without moving. Turned down many offers cause it was worth more. Now it isn't worth much at all. They make him put air in the tires and straighten it out on the tie downs a few times a year.

Our airport has a 30 gal/month fuel min. ****es off some folks but it's never been an issue with me.

 

[wsuffa]

To that effect some local FBOs are considering charging resident owners a modest quaterly minimum Say $200.00 per quater. What owner wouldn't use that in fuel alone every 3 months. Heck most annuals would cover that. I'm not a big fan of fees but I say Do It. If it helps get ride of the Queens, opens up spots for active pilots and makes running an FBO or Mx shop more profitable it will be better for GA.

Did ya ever think that if running an FBO were more profitable we'd have more little guys in the biz for longer and you wouldn't have to be a national FBO chain that only caters to the corp turbine guys in order to make any money?

Just my thoughts. Tawk amongst yourselves as the lady said.

Adam, I am in violent disagreement with the quarterly minimums. It rewards bad behavior on the part of the FBO and airport authority.

I own a plane, I pay $350 a month (up from $275 a month just in the last 4 months) to keep it in a T-Hangar. Yet I go to a nearby airport to buy fuel, and I often take it elsewhere for annuals and specialized maintenance. BTW, the $350 a month (less ground rent under the T-Hangars) is almost pure profit as the FBO bought the previous FBO at a very low price out of bankruptcy).

Why?

Well, fuel - bought from the same distributor - is up to $1.00 a gallon cheaper at the neighboring airport. Used to be more competitive. I have had a number of maintenance issues with the local FBO (though I do use them for some routine things)... I always want to use a different IA to do the annual to catch any safety items that they may miss. The local FBO doesn't carry charts much beyond Texas, so when I go IFR on a trip (about once every couple of months), I can't get the charts there. If I'm going to maintain a subscription, I'm also going to subscribe to the local charts.

Yet on top of all this, the FBO prohibits construction of experimental aircraft in any of the hangars or on the field. Any type of maintenance on the ramp is prohibited. So a number of the old "community" members have been chased off. And the policies on instruction discourage or prohibit use of your owned plane.

Hangars are so tight that there are few other places to go right now, and the ones I know are available do not have instrument approaches.

FWIW, the hangar queens have already been run off.

$200 does exactly what for an FBO like this? Yes, I like the folks at the FBO, and I do use them for a number of things, but an additional $200/month above the $350 would be enough to make me sell the plane at this point. Then the business is lost for good.

This is a municipally-owned reliever, not an air-carrier airport.

 

[AdamZ]

Bill it is a tough situation indeed. If I were in your situation I suppose that I would feel the same way. When you have an FBO that is flush such as yours it is obviously not a problem. I would never want to be " forced" to use a certain Mx shop for sure.

I suppose some fields dont' have a big problem with ramp queens. I can count 7 at my field just off the top of my head and I hear there are a bunch more up in the top hangars that I have never seen. The guy that runs my FBO is a good guy. He is community oriented, Ask anyone who goes to the Wings FlyBQ I run and they will tell you how accomidating they are. I know for a fact that he gets killed in the winter which may not be as much of a problem in TX.

I just think It has to be attractive for FBOs otherwise why would they stay in business. It sounds as though yours does not have that concern and if mine were in your situation I would certainly agree with your position.

 

[wsuffa]

Bill it is a tough situation indeed. If I were in your situation I suppose that I would feel the same way. When you have an FBO that is flush such as yours it is obviously not a problem. I would never want to be " forced" to use a certain Mx shop for sure.

I suppose some fields dont' have a big problem with ramp queens. I can count 7 at my field just off the top of my head and I hear there are a bunch more up in the top hangars that I have never seen. The guy that runs my FBO is a good guy. He is community oriented, Ask anyone who goes to the Wings FlyBQ I run and they will tell you how accomidating they are. I know for a fact that he gets killed in the winter which may not be as much of a problem in TX.

I just think It has to be attractive for FBOs otherwise why would they stay in business. It sounds as though yours does not have that concern and if mine were in your situation I would certainly agree with your position.

I don't know that they're making a ton of money. They do hold a very dominant position on the field, however. Another reason that monopolies are not good. The city doesn't help matters (they recently disbanded the airport committee).

Unfortunately, I find a lot of FBOs think that a drop in revenue (due to bad service, whatever,) should be made up simply by raising prices or imposing fees. If you're uncompetitive, then folks will buy the services they need where they can. If prices are reasonable, then why go elsewhere?

If the hangar queens are paying money for the tie-down space, and there is plenty of tie-down space (e.g. no lost opportunity cost), then I see no reason to not let them stay, allowing the FBO to collect that income. If, however, there is no ramp space, then it's a different story.

 

[silver-eagle]

Maybe the answer is in the "Junk Vehicle" ordanance most communities are putting into effect. The airport management needs to tack on some rules regarding the aircraft parked at their airport. Maybe "Must be maintained properly and in flying condition with all appropriate licensing and registration.". That would put an end to hanger queens.
Believe me, there are plenty of reasons why they don't fly as often as the owner wants them too. And it's not always about money.

 

[AdamZ]

I
If the hangar queens are paying money for the tie-down space, and there is plenty of tie-down space (e.g. no lost opportunity cost), then I see no reason to not let them stay, allowing the FBO to collect that income. If, however, there is no ramp space, then it's a different story.

My friend you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Those of us that don't own often think Hey if your gonna let that plane rot just give it to me to fly.

Yeah, really.

MSN just has one, or at least only one that's obvious: A Traumahawk that's sitting on the South ramp, surrounded by cones. I've never seen it move.

Grumman lovers, cover your eyes. There were (are still, probably) a pair of Grummans at MWC that had really cool paint jobs but were sitting on flat tires and never moved. We also had a 152 that owed more for maintenance than the plane was worth sitting there with a prop lock on it.

The last one that I remember has been rescued: N6590M, a 182 which was owned by the first Cirrus customer to have a fatal crash (VFR into IMC, CFIT). His family was asking way too much for the 182, but I just looked it up and it lives in Florida now.

 

[poadeleted1]

More than once I have approached an owner of a ramp/hangar queen and just started chatting about their airplane. Usually it ends when I ask if they plan on flying it again one day - and if not, would they like to sell it to be free of the recurrent costs (tie down, hangar, insurance, whatever else). Although I could not fly it, I was chatting with a guy at his C337. He was busy taking out all the electronics; the rear engine was sort of in the back seat, all tires flat...you know the kind. He said I could have it for $55K - as is, where is. Wow, did he love that plane....or what was left of it.

 

[Dean]

A couple of us went to the City Manager and ask about getting the hanger queens removed. His outlook was that hangers are for airplane storage, flying or not, and as long as he (the city) was getting the rent checks, he did not care. The ony restriction on hangers is they MUST be used for aviation related items.

 

[wsuffa]

My friend you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

Yabut, have a plane that flys regularly does nothing to ensure that the FBO makes more money.

As I see it, the $200 minimum (above tiedown/hangar rental) is forcing you to do business with that FBO regardless of quality and/or service.

A better solution is just to raise the tiedown/hangar rate to a point where supply=demand. Were this a rational business, the additional income would support the investment in additional hangars/tiedown spots.

But aviation is not rational.

I'd rather see the airport create some kind of long-term tiedown area (maybe in the grass), freeing ramp space for regular plane users.

 

[AdamZ]

Yabut, have a plane that flys regularly does nothing to ensure that the FBO makes more money.

As I see it, the $200 minimum (above tiedown/hangar rental) is forcing you to do business with that FBO regardless of quality and/or service.

A better solution is just to raise the tiedown/hangar rate to a point where supply=demand. Were this a rational business, the additional income would support the investment in additional hangars/tiedown spots.

But aviation is not rational.

I'd rather see the airport create some kind of long-term tiedown area (maybe in the grass), freeing ramp space for regular plane users.

That would be a good Idea. Only glitch is the Township has repeatedly denyed applications for additional transiet parking and for the construction of new hangars.

Plus I guess the thinking on the part of the FBO is that they don't want to punish the "active" flyers by raising rents and since a vast majority of these folks already do business with the FBO is will have zero effect on them.

 

[flyersfan31]

I hear you, Brother! Let's start towing in the middle of the night, start with the K35 Bo across from my hangar!!!! That baby will NEVER be airworthy again.

I'm uncomfortable with the minimum mandate. I already do all my maint and fuel there, so it wouldn't affect me, but just charge the whole carrying cost to the hangar and let the chips fall where they may. Price hangars, fuel, maint separately and fairly and, economics says, you'll get the appropriate level of business. Sometimes the appropriate level isn't the same as break-even/profitable. That's the said truth about aviation.

RANT ON
What is fairly priced? Read comments on AirNav or AOPA about various FBOs. They charge a $5 or $10 landing fee and people act like they're being robbed at gunpoint. Hey -- airports don't just grow on trees!! How the heck are these guys supposed to remain in business. Overnight tiedown at $20? NEVER!! Shoot, I pay $15 for parking my car a few hours in Philadelphia -- $20 for an airplane overnight seems like a small fee. Again, how is the FBO supposed to pay for the guys driving the fuel trucks, waving you into your space, answering phones, etc etc etc????

I much prefer the current annual status mandate. If the plane is out of annual, it's off the airfield (one presumes under a ferry certificate?) or at least kicked out of its hangar. Or, how about a minimum usage requirement? Even if they just took a loop around the pattern once every 3-6 mos, at least it gets the owners' a$$3s out to the field.

It does seem unfair that some joker can let their plane rot under a hangar just because they got there first with $$, while someone who really wants to take care of their plane has to stay outside in the rain and hail.

RANT OFF

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What is fairly priced? Read comments on AirNav or AOPA about various FBOs. They charge a $5 or $10 landing fee and people act like they're being robbed at gunpoint.

I really hope the guy who posted on how awful and "unfriendly" MWC and UES were for charging $5 goes to MKE next time. Can't wait to see how he likes the $44 fee at $ignature.

 

[wsuffa]

I much prefer the current annual status mandate. If the plane is out of annual, it's off the airfield (one presumes under a ferry certificate?) or at least kicked out of its hangar. Or, how about a minimum usage requirement? Even if they just took a loop around the pattern once every 3-6 mos, at least it gets the owners' a$$3s out to the field.

It does seem unfair that some joker can let their plane rot under a hangar just because they got there first with $$, while someone who really wants to take care of their plane has to stay outside in the rain and hail.

There are a number of folks (at least down this way) that are military personnel or are working to get their medicals back. Would you propose that their planes be thrown out of the hangars either becasue they aren't used over a 3-month period - or they're pickled and out of annual due to the deployment?

 

[flyersfan31]

No, not at all, and that's where a hard-and-fast rule can get tricky. I bet those folks in your example are at the airport frequently, whether they can fly or not because they just love aviation. They're not the problem. The problem is the abandoned planes. I know the ones to which Adam was referring and I don't think those owners are just trying to get their medical back. The planes have been left to rot. I don't think anyone would begrudge a paid-for hanger being occupied by someone who CAN'T fly.

Plus, I'm trying to think of alternatives. Probably should have avoided the a$$3s comment. One size does NOT fit all. It's a tricky situation.

 

[flyersfan31]

Ooops, didn't address the military thing. Same goes there too. It's not the folks who want to fly but can't that are the problem. I don't think anyone would seriously propose kicking a deployed military guy/gal's plane out of their hanger. Well, some people might because they just hate the military so much, but I'm talking about reasonable people here, not maniacs.

I don't like "minimum purchase" requirements. It's like the "tip included" on a restaurant bill. I'LL make that decision, thank you!

 

[Ken Ibold]

A couple of us went to the City Manager and ask about getting the hanger queens removed. His outlook was that hangers are for airplane storage, flying or not, and as long as he (the city) was getting the rent checks, he did not care. The ony restriction on hangers is they MUST be used for aviation related items.

The FBO owner where I used to be based bought a bunch of T-hangars on the other side of the field. In the course of doing his due diligence on them, he found that more contained boats than airplanes. After the deal closed, he kicked out EVERYONE and made everyone re-apply for rental, with a caveat that the hangar had to contain an airplane covered by airplane insurance.

Seems to me it's in the FBO's interest to have flying airplanes, since that in theory would lead to fuel sales and maintenance calls.

 

[AdamZ]

I hear you, Brother! Let's start towing in the middle of the night, start with the K35 Bo across from my hangar!!!! That baby will NEVER be airworthy again.

Ugh doesn't that kill you Andrew. If Bird Guano were gold that plane would be worth a million bucks. Actually the story behind that plane is very sad. I'll tell ya at the FlyBQ or if I see ya before that at the field.

 

[Gary]

We all know them and have seen them at our airports. "Ramp Queens or Hangar Queens" Those planes that NEVER fly, Have flat tires, so much bird poop that the plane could be an add for a bird laxitive and about 1000 dead bees or flys between the windscreen and glare shield.

Adam:

Understand your point, but can't see how a "minimum" charge helps the issue. I do agree that hangers, tiedowns, T-hangers should be restricted to aviation only. I was surprised at the number of hangers that had cars, boats, building supplies and the like stored in them. Quakertown implemented such a plan a few years ago and a number of hangers did open up (still past my price ability ). Still, watching some of these planes just sit and rot is hard to handle, and there are a multitude of reasons why. I still don't understand how a "minimum charge" is going to change that. If the owner of a hanger queen is paying the rent, I see no reason to obligate them to an additional fee. I do want the choice of spending my money at any location where I can get the most value. If I want to spend more at my local airport and support the local FBO, that's my choice.

Gary