Hangar Lease Contract

[kyleb]

Last week, I was handed a new lease to sign to keep my hangar. I asked "What changed from the old one?" and got a mumbled answer followed by "We're just trying to get everyone up to date, and everyone is being asked to sign this contract."

The stated deadline for returning the signed contract is September 1. Basically 2 weeks from when it was first offered. I don't think anyone other than the airport authority and their lawyers saw the contract until now. IMO, this is the kind of thing they should have rolled out with a comment period so there was time for feedback and to revise the contract if necessary.

Once I read the contract, it became apparent that the lawyers got a bit carried away. In a big picture sense, they are moving in the right direction (for instance, prohibiting sub-leases and requiring proof of ownership to tie aircraft to hangars and owners). On the other hand, the contract mandates some petty stuff like prop locks, locked aircraft, <2 gallons of flammables in a hangar, and also creates insurance mandates and barriers to legally self-performing maintenance.

Personally, I'd hate to be thrown out of my hangar because I was violating at least two of their new mandates by changing the oil in my airplane. I really don't believe that is their intent, but that's how the contract reads. Obviously it brings up the question of why you'd write things into a contract you have no intention of enforcing.

So, sign the thing and carry on? Sic AOPA on 'em? Organize an airport riot? Call the board members, pat 'em on the back for getting the big picture right, but encourage/demand/cajole them to push back their deadlines and review some of the questionable items in the contract?

 

[BillTIZ]

Push to have the deadline adjusted, start an "airport stakeholders" group and start discussing the details. By definition a hangar is for aircraft storage and maintenance. The lease should be written to allow owner approved maintenance under Part 43 and also allow a contract A&P, IA to complete maintenance in your hangar.

What the lease may specify is that an A&P may not conduct a business of maintaining other aircraft from a "row hangar" without proper licensing and insurance coverage.

The local fire chief got carried away and said that aircraft maintenance includes welding and was requiring every hangar lease holder to get a welding permit from the fire department. That got shot down quickly, welding is not a part 43 owner approved maintenance item, and if welding is needed a properly certified, licensed and insured welder would be brought in.

You can expect the lease to have all the boilerplate environmental statements about responsibility for oil spills, fuel spills and clean up. Let's face it, some old airplanes drip oil. You should push that you are not responsible for ancient oil in/on the ground from the 80 years the airport has been around, only what is obviously your spill.

The first lease the county tried to push around here was very draconian. You could not tie your shoes without special permission. We fixed that.

You can expect rules about video, photo etc without special permission. Filming jr.s first airplane ride or solo is fine. Filming a documentary or being interviewed by the local news on airport property may not be fine, especially if the interview is adversarial to the airport management.

 

[frfly172]

Get a group of hangar owners together,make them aware of the contract,then as a group try to work out a new agreement ,with the airport authority. You may need an attorney.

 

[Ravioli]

And act quickly.

Many other recipients of the same signature request may have just signed and returned it without asking the questions that you are asking.

If the majority of the lessees do not respond on a timely basis it will be easier to get some traction on the changes. If 90% comply without push back you'll have an uphill battle on your hands.

 

[Clark1961]

Can you be compelled to sign a new lease? Read the old lease and if they don't have the option to terminate then tell'em you aren't signing the new lease.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Scan it into OCR, alter it to your acceptability, sign and return.

 

[gov98]

I assume one is dealing with a local government airport?

If so, just recognize the heart / mind of a bureaucrat. They want you to sign the paper because that is "their job." But they also have no interest in finding you / busting you because that is "someone else's job."

If you have other options you may want to look into them, but the likely reality, is that the recent seminar put on by Airport Consulting LLC that the local government paid $8,000 to attend (all expenses paid mind you, in Florida too...Orlando to be specific and they took Wednesday off) told them this is what they "had to do." And there isn't going to be a soul in the airport who's going to dissuade them from it, but strangely, they're never going to look in your hangar or trouble you.

 

[bradg33]

Is your airport public? If so, has it accepted federal funds (is it subject to grant assurances)? That can drastically alter what provisions can be inserted into your hangar lease. If the answer is "no federal funds," you've got a lot less leverage.

I'd bet your current lease is month to month and allows the airport to terminate on 30 days notice. If you don't sign the new lease, I'd almost guarantee you'll get a 30 day notice.

At the end of the day, even if the airport is subject to grant assurances, your only "leverage" is insisting that the lease be altered to be consistent with the grant assurances. Otherwise, if you don't like the terms, your option is to find a new airport (or complain loudly and hope they cave, which may be unlikely depending on demand for hangars, etc.).

 

[oldShar]

Once I read the contract, it became apparent that the lawyers got a bit carried away. ... the contract mandates some petty stuff like prop locks, locked aircraft, <2 gallons of flammables in a hangar, and also creates insurance mandates and barriers to legally self-performing maintenance.

So, in essence, it says that you have to hire the FBO to come over and defuel your aircraft before you can put it (acft) away ====> "<2 gallons of flammables" (ie you can't have gas in your tanks) and "barriers to ... self-performing maintenance" (ie YOU can't do the defueling)

Lawyer heaven!!

 

[Kristin]

Last week, I was handed a new lease to sign to keep my hangar. I asked "What changed from the old one?" and got a mumbled answer followed by "We're just trying to get everyone up to date, and everyone is being asked to sign this contract."

The stated deadline for returning the signed contract is September 1. Basically 2 weeks from when it was first offered. I don't think anyone other than the airport authority and their lawyers saw the contract until now. IMO, this is the kind of thing they should have rolled out with a comment period so there was time for feedback and to revise the contract if necessary.

Once I read the contract, it became apparent that the lawyers got a bit carried away. In a big picture sense, they are moving in the right direction (for instance, prohibiting sub-leases and requiring proof of ownership to tie aircraft to hangars and owners). On the other hand, the contract mandates some petty stuff like prop locks, locked aircraft, <2 gallons of flammables in a hangar, and also creates insurance mandates and barriers to legally self-performing maintenance.

Personally, I'd hate to be thrown out of my hangar because I was violating at least two of their new mandates by changing the oil in my airplane. I really don't believe that is their intent, but that's how the contract reads. Obviously it brings up the question of why you'd write things into a contract you have no intention of enforcing.

So, sign the thing and carry on? Sic AOPA on 'em? Organize an airport riot? Call the board members, pat 'em on the back for getting the big picture right, but encourage/demand/cajole them to push back their deadlines and review some of the questionable items in the contract?

If the airport has received federal AIP funding in the last twenty years, they are subject to the grant assurances, i.e. contract that they signed with the federal government. One of the assurances is that the airport cannot prevent an owner from doing maintenance on their own aircraft. This covers the owner him/herself or their employee.

The flammable liquids clause must be clarified so that they are not referring to fuel in the tanks and it needs to make an exception for maintenance activities. If they can't prevent you from doing maintenance on your aircraft, they can't prevent you from storing necessary supplies to perform that maintenance.

 

[kyleb]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I spoke with the chairman of the Airport Authority today. He indicated that their lawyer had added many of the new requirements based on a contract they borrowed from PDK, probably the most contentious airport in the Metro Atlanta area. My home airport is in a much more rural setting with none of the issues faced by PDK, which has an ongoing fight with a very active local group which opposes the airport at every opportunity.

The chairman basically said the Authority has no intention of enforcing most of the stipulations and might consider changes in the future. I pointed out that one activist could raise hell at the airport and force the Airport Authority to aggressively enforce all of the rules, even the dumb or almost impossible to enforce ones. Does the Authority really want to open the door to that kind of thing? So why not tell the lawyer to bite his tongue and re-write the lease the way the board wants it (and has the ability to enforce it) rather than creating a fantasy lease that will not be enforced.

We'll see where that goes.

 

[BillTIZ]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I spoke with the chairman of the Airport Authority today. He indicated that their lawyer had added many of the new requirements based on a contract they borrowed from PDK, probably the most contentious airport in the Metro Atlanta area. My home airport is in a much more rural setting with none of the issues faced by PDK, which has an ongoing fight with a very active local group which opposes the airport at every opportunity.

The chairman basically said the Authority has no intention of enforcing most of the stipulations and might consider changes in the future. I pointed out that one activist could raise hell at the airport and force the Airport Authority to aggressively enforce all of the rules, even the dumb or almost impossible to enforce ones. Does the Authority really want to open the door to that kind of thing? So why not tell the lawyer to bite his tongue and re-write the lease the way the board wants it (and has the ability to enforce it) rather than creating a fantasy lease that will not be enforced.

We'll see where that goes.

Rules with "no intention to enforce" are still rules. Then if they don't enforce the rules and sometime in the future the choose to enforce the rules, the airport authority has already lost in a court battle. They cannot selectively choose what rules they want to enforce when. That falls back to treating everyone the same. They cannot choose who get what treatment.

I don't think the airport authority wants to open that can of worms.

 

[kyleb]

Rules with "no intention to enforce" are still rules. Then if they don't enforce the rules and sometime in the future the choose to enforce the rules, the airport authority has already lost in a court battle. They cannot selectively choose what rules they want to enforce when. That falls back to treating everyone the same. They cannot choose who get what treatment.

I don't think the airport authority wants to open that can of worms.

Agree 100%. They are pursuing a bad set of policies, driven by a lawyer trying to dot every I and cross every T rather than recognizing the practicalities of the situation. Sometimes people need to tell the lawyer "No. We're not going to do it that way. It doesn't make sense."

 

[Kristin]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I spoke with the chairman of the Airport Authority today. He indicated that their lawyer had added many of the new requirements based on a contract they borrowed from PDK, probably the most contentious airport in the Metro Atlanta area. My home airport is in a much more rural setting with none of the issues faced by PDK, which has an ongoing fight with a very active local group which opposes the airport at every opportunity.

The chairman basically said the Authority has no intention of enforcing most of the stipulations and might consider changes in the future. I pointed out that one activist could raise hell at the airport and force the Airport Authority to aggressively enforce all of the rules, even the dumb or almost impossible to enforce ones. Does the Authority really want to open the door to that kind of thing? So why not tell the lawyer to bite his tongue and re-write the lease the way the board wants it (and has the ability to enforce it) rather than creating a fantasy lease that will not be enforced.

We'll see where that goes.

Maybe someone should point out the problem with the grant assurances, before someone complains to the FAA about the violations of the grant assurances.

 

[Tom-D]

Maybe someone should point out the problem with the grant assurances, before someone complains to the FAA about the violations of the grant assurances.

Very very few privately owned airports will get any Federal money. You must have an impact on the transportation system, most small airports don't.

 

[Tom-D]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I spoke with the chairman of the Airport Authority today. He indicated that their lawyer had added many of the new requirements based on a contract they borrowed from PDK, probably the most contentious airport in the Metro Atlanta area. My home airport is in a much more rural setting with none of the issues faced by PDK, which has an ongoing fight with a very active local group which opposes the airport at every opportunity.

The chairman basically said the Authority has no intention of enforcing most of the stipulations and might consider changes in the future. I pointed out that one activist could raise hell at the airport and force the Airport Authority to aggressively enforce all of the rules, even the dumb or almost impossible to enforce ones. Does the Authority really want to open the door to that kind of thing? So why not tell the lawyer to bite his tongue and re-write the lease the way the board wants it (and has the ability to enforce it) rather than creating a fantasy lease that will not be enforced.

We'll see where that goes.

Keep in mind, that the airport must adhere to fire and building codes of the city or county, maybe both.

Plus every nurd renter and every wacky idea they have as to what a hangar can be used for.

 

[Kristin]

Very very few privately owned airports will get any Federal money. You must have an impact on the transportation system, most small airports don't.

That is true, however here, it appears to be owned by an airport authority, i.e. a public entity and likely has taken federal money.

 

[Kristin]

Keep in mind, that the airport must adhere to fire and building codes of the city or county, maybe both.

Plus every nurd renter and every wacky idea they have as to what a hangar can be used for.

Only to the point that they do not conflict with federal mandates.

 

[Ravioli]

Hmm.. wrong thread, but, you're saying the Airport Authority wants you to sign a lease with provisions they "don't intend" to enforce? Kinda like the POTUS?

I'd offer a lease addendum showing you and the authority as parties, your hangar as the leased property, and an exclusion list with each provision you are being excused from, and indicate that a similar addendum will be required for all future leases between parties.

They sign that and you're golden. They cannot selectively enforce since you are permitted in a writing of equal standing and coincident with the lease.

 

[kyleb]

Keep in mind, that the airport must adhere to fire and building codes of the city or county, maybe both.

Plus every nurd renter and every wacky idea they have as to what a hangar can be used for.

Much of what they are doing is to "Protect the Airport against suits arising from under-the-the-radar maintenance facilities." They are afraid that if someone sets up an unauthorized shop in a T-hangar and one of his clients crashes an airplane, the airport will get sued. Seems like a very improbable string of events to worry about.

 

[JOhnH]

Scan it into OCR, alter it to your acceptability, sign and return.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks for all of the comments.

I spoke with the chairman of the Airport Authority today. He indicated that their lawyer had added many of the new requirements based on a contract they borrowed from PDK, probably the most contentious airport in the Metro Atlanta area. My home airport is in a much more rural setting with none of the issues faced by PDK, which has an ongoing fight with a very active local group which opposes the airport at every opportunity.

The chairman basically said the Authority has no intention of enforcing most of the stipulations and might consider changes in the future. I pointed out that one activist could raise hell at the airport and force the Airport Authority to aggressively enforce all of the rules, even the dumb or almost impossible to enforce ones. Does the Authority really want to open the door to that kind of thing? So why not tell the lawyer to bite his tongue and re-write the lease the way the board wants it (and has the ability to enforce it) rather than creating a fantasy lease that will not be enforced.

We'll see where that goes.

I like that phrase "fantasy lease." You can find that in a numbner of legal fields with (what I consider to be) better lawyers writing with reality in mind. It's actually a form of attorney CYA.

One of my all-time favorites is confidentiality agreements, especially for joint development of software. I used to write and review those and always laughed when I received drafts with long, complex instructions about "CONFIDENTIAL" marking, highlighting, attachments, etc that code writers in the back room were "supposed" to follow every time they discussed or emailed each other about a new line of code.

 

[bradg33]

Rules with "no intention to enforce" are still rules. Then if they don't enforce the rules and sometime in the future the choose to enforce the rules, the airport authority has already lost in a court battle. They cannot selectively choose what rules they want to enforce when. That falls back to treating everyone the same. They cannot choose who get what treatment.

I don't think the airport authority wants to open that can of worms.

Actually, in most cases parties to a contract CAN selectively enforce provisions. Most well-drafted leases and other agreements contain various non-waiver provisions that say, effectively, "my failure to enforce a particular provision today doesn't mean I can't enforce that same provision, or any other provision, tomorrow." Many courts will enforce those non-waiver provisions, too. Of course, there are limits to that doctrine, but it's still more or less the general rule.

 

[Ravioli]

Actually, in most cases parties to a contract CAN selectively enforce provisions. Most well-drafted leases and other agreements contain various non-waiver provisions that say, effectively, "my failure to enforce a particular provision today doesn't mean I can't enforce that same provision, or any other provision, tomorrow." Many courts will enforce those non-waiver provisions, too. Of course, there are limits to that doctrine, but it's still more or less the general rule.

Which is why I suggested that a writing specifying that the provision will not be enforced is needed. Failure to enforce does not preclude future enforcement. Written exclusion of the provision does.