Playing Hardball at the Airport

Jay Honeck

Jay Honeck

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
11,571
Location
Ingleside, TX
Display Name
Jay Honeck
Home Airfield
KTFP - Ingleside, TX
I spoke with one of our guests last week who claimed to have successfully received a damage settlement from a municipal airport due to damage done to his paint by FOD that was negligently allowed to build up on the airport.

I found this amazing, and wondered if anyone had ever heard of such a thing? There are SO many municipal airports with this type of poor maintenance, this precedent could be an incentive for those airports to clean up their act -- literally.

Also, on another topic, I know two pilots who are in an ongoing battle with their municipalities over hangars at airports that are filled with junk, instead of airplanes.

This has been an ongoing issue at every airport I've been based at, in three different states (WI/IA/TX) -- so I think its safe to say that this is a common, often intractable problem.

At our airport, for example, there are just 18 hangars, only nine with airplanes in them. The rest are full of boats and other non-aviation junk.

Meanwhile, we have 21 guys with airplanes, waiting for a hangar. It's an aggravating situation that is costing the airport a lot of fuel sales.

Has anyone ever successfully won this issue? Has anyone actually forced hangar owners to follow or enforce the FAA rules re: aircraft usage of hangars?

If so, I'd love to hear about it, with any advice on the steps needed to get 'er done.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't push too hard on the FOD issue. Some municipalities may decide it's a bigger liability to have an airport open than the benefits it provides.

While I'm not a huge fan of our Metropolitan Airport Commission, one thing they seem to be doing a decent job on is making sure hangars are used for airplanes, not warehouses. You can warehouse anything you want in them as long as there's an airplane in there somewhere.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
I wouldn't push to hard on the FOD issue. Some municipalities may decide it's a bigger liability to have an airport open that the benefits it provides.

While I'm not a huge fan of our Metropolitan Airport Commission, one thing they seem to be doing a decent job on is making sure hangars are used for airplanes, not warehouses. You can warehouse anything you want in them as long as there's an airplane in there somewhere.
Click to expand...
Agreed. On the other hand, often all it would take is a run or two with a street sweeper to keep the ramp and taxiways clean. Many towns already have them.

WRT hangars full of junk, in Iowa City the worst violator was the University of Iowa -- the town's biggest employer. NO ONE wanted to go head-to-head with them, especially since most members of the airport commission worked for the university.

Here, it's a different problem. But rather than discuss that, I'd like to hear some success stories, if they exist?
 
What's the incentive to utilize a hangar as a miscellaneous storage space? Seems an incredibibly expensive proposition when you can put a shed in the backyard for nada.

Hangaring has always been an irony to me. Dying GA yet always a waiting list everywhere you go and 300-500 for a damn T-hangar. Granted, it's probably location location location. Places where people with money want to live experience a shortage of space since these areas are probably metropolitan. I certainly don't encounter problems hangaring my aircraft in the armpit of mexican hell for 125/mo for a community hangar, but that and a buck twenty gets me a cup of coffee. Living in an airpark suddenly sounds appealing when facing these issues (far away hangar or expensive/unavailable).
 
Jay Honeck said:
I spoke with one of our guests last week who claimed to have successfully received a damage settlement from a municipal airport due to damage done to his paint by FOD that was negligently allowed to build up on the airport.

I found this amazing, and wondered if anyone had ever heard of such a thing? There are SO many municipal airports with this type of poor maintenance, this precedent could be an incentive for those airports to clean up their act -- literally.

Also, on another topic, I know two pilots who are in an ongoing battle with their municipalities over hangars at airports that are filled with junk, instead of airplanes.

This has been an ongoing issue at every airport I've been based at, in three different states (WI/IA/TX) -- so I think its safe to say that this is a common, often intractable problem.

At our airport, for example, there are just 18 hangars, only nine with airplanes in them. The rest are full of boats and other non-aviation junk.

Meanwhile, we have 21 guys with airplanes, waiting for a hangar. It's an aggravating situation that is costing the airport a lot of fuel sales.

Has anyone ever successfully won this issue? Has anyone actually forced hangar owners to follow or enforce the FAA rules re: aircraft usage of hangars?

If so, I'd love to hear about it, with any advice on the steps needed to get 'er done.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Is your airports exciting federal AIP money? If so, they're obligated to rent the hangars out for aeronautical use. You can file a informal complaint against the airport for violating its grant assurances. Problem is, if the airport fails to take corrective steps, the FAA can cut off funding.

More info here: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/overview/
 
Our airport has a requirement in the hangar lease that you keep an airplane in the hangar. In practice, they let people get away without one but if someone with an airplane wants it, they'll give the tenant 30 days to clear out.

I had this option for 2 hangars but went with another that was available immediately.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's the incentive to utilize a hangar as a miscellaneous storage space? Seems an incredibibly expensive proposition when you can put a shed in the backyard for nada.
Click to expand...

Because in many places you can rent a hangar for cheaper than you can rent a storage space. At many rural airports the hangar rent is $30-80 and not much more at the larger airports.

The problem with renting hangars for non-aeronautical purposes is that it violates federal grant agreements. If the airport sponsor took money from the government for improvements they need to follow the rules. Many cities don't really understand airports and/or what they signed while others just think they're in charge of things and don't have to answer to anyone about it. I'd suggest pushing the issue if you want a hangar and you know there are some full of boats, campers, cars, etc.

I just got a hangar at a more convenient airport after waiting for three years. It seems that the new airport manager is kicking out some of the guys who were just using their hangars for storage space. It's about time...
 
At Sullivan MO the hangars are checked annually and everything in them must be aviation related and at least one of the aviation related objects must be an airplane.
 
mondtster said:
I'd suggest pushing the issue if you want a hangar and you know there are some full of boats, campers, cars, etc.
Click to expand...

Pushing it...how?

The city has accepted TXDOT AIP funding, which has the exact rules of acceptance as FAA AIP funding. The rules stipulate aeronautical use.

I'm interested in hearing from someone who successfully "pushed the issue". Tell us the steps you followed, and what procedure was used by the airport to evict the non-complying hangar owners/tenants.
 
tinerj said:
At Sullivan MO the hangars are checked annually and everything in them must be aviation related and at least one of the aviation related objects must be an airplane.
Click to expand...

Our city made a show of doing this...but never followed through with any action. The nine hangars full of junk are still full of junk, a year later.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Pushing it...how?

The city has accepted TXDOT AIP funding, which has the exact rules of acceptance as FAA AIP funding. The rules stipulate aeronautical use.

I'm interested in hearing from someone who successfully "pushed the issue". Tell us the steps you followed, and what procedure was used by the airport to evict the non-complying hangar owners/tenants.
Click to expand...
The people waiting for hangars should complain to TXDOT.
 
The best run airports I've seen have the pilot community and airport management working together as a team rather than "us vs. them"
 
kkoran said:
The people waiting for hangars should complain to TXDOT.
Click to expand...

That, or the FAA.

I don't know how it works in Texas, but here the federal funds are given to the state and they distribute them as they see fit. So your TX DOT AIP funds may in fact be FAA funds and fall under their rules and jurisdiction.

The first thing you're going to need to do is figure out how the airport management is structured. I'd start with the airport manager and keep working my way up the food chain until I got some results or give up. I'd be pointing out the grant agreement rules and suggesting the people read them.

Like I said before, airports are kind of a strange thing and many city managers and council members don't understand them. They may not know what is even going on at the airport or that they aren't following the grant agreement rules. They may also just be ignoring the rules for whatever reason. In the latter case you may have to go to the FAA to get anything done about it.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's the incentive to utilize a hangar as a miscellaneous storage space? Seems an incredibibly expensive proposition when you can put a shed in the backyard for nada..
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. Hangars are usually a fraction of the price of self-storage places on a square footage basis. And they usually come with lights and power.
 
kkoran said:
The people waiting for hangars should complain to TXDOT.
Click to expand...

That's been done. The TXDOT guy (a VERY good guy -- I've known him for years, from back in Iowa) came to town, spitting nails and more than ready to help us. He was even interviewed by the local newspaper, and publicly stated that our airport's hangars HAD to have airplanes in them...or else.

Within hours, one of the billionaire out-of-town hangar owners apparently contacted one of the politicians they owned, five levels above our TXDOT guy.

From this point on it's all conjecture, but we assume that the politician told the political appointee in charge of TXDOT to curb his dog -- or else -- and make this problem go away. All we know is that the TXDOT guy absolutely and instantly disappeared, never to be heard from again, and his boss was forced to apologize to the city council for threatening to take their airport grant money back.

Like I said, this is an intractable problem. We are up against oil money here, and these guys can buy and sell...anyone.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Pushing it...how?

The city has accepted TXDOT AIP funding, which has the exact rules of acceptance as FAA AIP funding. The rules stipulate aeronautical use.

I'm interested in hearing from someone who successfully "pushed the issue". Tell us the steps you followed, and what procedure was used by the airport to evict the non-complying hangar owners/tenants.
Click to expand...

Sue the city/county/airport commission for not doing their job is about all you have that can be effective. Either that or you can start some fires in some hangars full of junk.
 
If some guy is hoarding junk and paying rent, but not flying, that hurts everyone on the field except the guy hoarding the junk.

It hurts and cuts twice everyone looking for a hangar because it forces rent prices to go up because of a false scarcity of hangar space on the field. And since there are no fuel sales or other sales to support the FBO, that cuts the entire field again.

It shouldn't be right that someone can rent an aircraft hangar and not have any aircraft in it. If that were kosher, every-body would be doing it, since it's easy to decipher that the cost savings compared to your typical storage rental is much cheaper. :nono:
 
Jay Honeck said:
I spoke with one of our guests last week who claimed to have successfully received a damage settlement from a municipal airport due to damage done to his paint by FOD that was negligently allowed to build up on the airport.

I found this amazing, and wondered if anyone had ever heard of such a thing? There are SO many municipal airports with this type of poor maintenance, this precedent could be an incentive for those airports to clean up their act -- literally.

Also, on another topic, I know two pilots who are in an ongoing battle with their municipalities over hangars at airports that are filled with junk, instead of airplanes.

This has been an ongoing issue at every airport I've been based at, in three different states (WI/IA/TX) -- so I think its safe to say that this is a common, often intractable problem.

At our airport, for example, there are just 18 hangars, only nine with airplanes in them. The rest are full of boats and other non-aviation junk.

Meanwhile, we have 21 guys with airplanes, waiting for a hangar. It's an aggravating situation that is costing the airport a lot of fuel sales.

Has anyone ever successfully won this issue? Has anyone actually forced hangar owners to follow or enforce the FAA rules re: aircraft usage of hangars?

If so, I'd love to hear about it, with any advice on the steps needed to get 'er done.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

According to the EAA and FAA if the airports took federal funds to build any portion of the airport the hangars MUST be used for aviation related activities. If there is a need for someone to use a hangar for an airplane ( or aviation activity ie; skydiving, ultralights, ect.) And there are hangars full of non aviation stuff, they must make way for the airplanes or the airport will be required to pay back ALL of the federal funds they have ever received! No, I am not kidding!

For more info call the legal department at the EAA. They will send you the info needed to give to the city telling them of these requirements. I know first hand it works! :D
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
That's been done. The TXDOT guy (a VERY good guy -- I've known him for years, from back in Iowa) came to town, spitting nails and more than ready to help us. He was even interviewed by the local newspaper, and publicly stated that our airport's hangars HAD to have airplanes in them...or else.

Within hours, one of the billionaire out-of-town hangar owners apparently contacted one of the politicians they owned, five levels above our TXDOT guy.
Click to expand...

So who owns the hangar(s)? This billionaire or the municipality? If the hangar is privately owned there probably isn't a whole lot you can do about it.

This is another area that varies from airport to airport. Airports range from having zero privately owned buildings to all privately owned buildings on them. There are airports of both extremes within a few miles of me here so this isn't something that just varies by region.
 
Geico266 said:
According to the EAA and FAA if the airports took federal funds to build any portion of the airport the hangars MUST be used for aviation related activities. If there is a need for someone to use a hangar for an airplane ( or aviation activity ie; skydiving, ultralights, ect.) And there are hangars full of non aviation stuff, thry must make way for the airplanes or the airport will be required to psy back ALLL of the federal funds they have ever received! No, I am not kidding!

For more info call the legal department at the EAA. They will send you the info needed to give to the city telling them of these requirements. I know first hand it works! :D
Click to expand...

That's all good in theory, but the application of the theory requires multiple steps, follow-up visits, letters, threats, and the willingness to see the process to the end. Since nobody in that chain is going to make an additional dollar by going to the trouble, it isn't like any of them are highly motivated to push the issue, so the ball is likely to get dropped at some point before things are resolved.

And that is the best case. Worst case is that one or more of the hoarders has a buddy or three who are on the Airport Authority board and who will derail the process to aid their friends.
 
JHW said:
You have it backwards. Hangars are usually a fraction of the price of self-storage places on a square footage basis. And they usually come with lights and power.
Click to expand...
+1
I am renting a hangar in Athens for our 182, $320.00 month, it will hold the same contents as $2000.00 worth of "self-storage" units, maybe more! Those junk storage units are expensive, minimum is 50-75.00 per month for a very small space. You can store 3-4 cars in a t-hangar, try storing them somewhere else for $300.00 per month! :D
 
mondtster said:
So who owns the hangar(s)? This billionaire or the municipality? If the hangar is privately owned there probably isn't a whole lot you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Even if the hangar is privately owned, it is on leased airport land and subject to the same FAA grant agreements (if the airport has accepted FAA grants).

I would be very surprised if TXDOT AIP money doesn't come from the FAA with the same grant assurance requirements. If TXDOT won't enforce the rules, talk to Ed Agnew at the FAA Southwest Region Airports Div. in Fort Worth.
 
mondtster said:
So who owns the hangar(s)? This billionaire or the municipality? If the hangar is privately owned there probably isn't a whole lot you can do about it.

This is another area that varies from airport to airport. Airports range from having zero privately owned buildings to all privately owned buildings on them. There are airports of both extremes within a few miles of me here so this isn't something that just varies by region.
Click to expand...
Our airport hangars are all privately owned. This has created a terrible, intractable problem, in that these owners feel that they can do what they want.

I actually sympathize with their position, but the moment the airport accepted TXDOT money, they became responsible for enforcing the rules.

The question that no one can seem to answer is...HOW? How does one force a private owner (albeit on leased public land) to put an airplane in a hangar?

We thought TXDOT was the answer. We were wrong.

So...what next?
 
Jay Honeck said:
Our airport hangars are all privately owned. This has created a terrible, intractable problem, in that these owners feel that they can do what they want.

I actually sympathize with their position, but the moment the airport accepted TXDOT money, they became responsible for enforcing the rules.

The question that no one can seem to answer is...HOW? How does one force a private owner (albeit on leased public land) to put an airplane in a hangar?

We thought TXDOT was the answer. We were wrong.

So...what next?
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. Even though the grant agreements require the airport sponsor to enforce the rules on privately owned hangars I think it will be harder to do. Especially if the hangar owner is someone with some influence at the local and/or state level.

I'd suggest calling the guy Graueradler recommended. He might be able to help in this situation.

Another question, how can you have a "waiting list" for privately owned hangars? Are these privately owned t hangars rather than a box type hangar or something?
 
Manager, Texas Airports Development Office (ASW-650)

Agnew, Ed 817-222-5650
 
Last edited:
It's been a few years since I've had a hangar at KBED, but fwiw the leasing agreement required that only aviation-related stuff could be kept in the hangar.
 
Even with a privately owned hangar, the land underneath is still leased, isn't it? I imagine it can get ugly if the airport tries to evict or force a sale, but it's probably well explained in the lease agreement.
 
Culpeper requires you have an airplane in your hangar. Whatever else you can get in there at the same time they don't too much worry about. If you get rid of your plane, you have thirty days to get new one (that you own, no more subletting) in there or else they'll turn your hangar over to the next person on the waiting list.

This change made the hangar waiting list that used to NEVER move to a reasonable time.

We don't play hardball at the airport, but when they were building my neighbors house, the latino construction guys would play soccer on the runway at lunchtime.
 
mondtster said:
Therein lies the problem. Even though the grant agreements require the airport sponsor to enforce the rules on privately owned hangars I think it will be harder to do. Especially if the hangar owner is someone with some influence at the local and/or state level.

I'd suggest calling the guy Graueradler recommended. He might be able to help in this situation.

Another question, how can you have a "waiting list" for privately owned hangars? Are these privately owned t hangars rather than a box type hangar or something?
Click to expand...
The hangar waiting list is maintained by our part-time airport manager, as an aid to hangar owners who may wish to rent them out, as well as a way to measure demand.

The city's plan is to build public hangars on the North side of the field in 2016. Unfortunately, the city just tried auctioning off the "right to build" a hangar on the sole remaining site (on the South side of the field) -- and one of the owners of the LA Dodgers paid $135,000.00 for it.

Remember, this $135K wasn't to buy a hangar, or even for the ground lease. This money was paid solely for the "right" build a hangar.

We fear that, now that the city has discovered this new "goose that lays the golden egg", there will be little incentive to build public hangars for us commoners to use.

Basically what we are ending up with is a private airport for billionaires that is publicly-owned and taxpayer supported. It's an intractable, seemingly unsolvable situation.

One final irony: That site the guy bought the rights to is too small to house his bizjet.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Our airport hangars are all privately owned. This has created a terrible, intractable problem, in that these owners feel that they can do what they want.
Click to expand...
how dare people use a building that they own to store their own possessions
 
Jay Honeck said:
The hangar waiting list is maintained by our part-time airport manager, as an aid to hangar owners who may wish to rent them out, as well as a way to measure demand.

The city's plan is to build public hangars on the North side of the field in 2016. Unfortunately, the city just tried auctioning off the "right to build" a hangar on the sole remaining site (on the South side of the field) -- and one of the owners of the LA Dodgers paid $135,000.00 for it.

Remember, this $135K wasn't to buy a hangar, or even for the ground lease. This money was paid solely for the "right" build a hangar.

We fear that, now that the city has discovered this new "goose that lays the golden egg", there will be little incentive to build public hangars for us commoners to use.

Basically what we are ending up with is a private airport for billionaires that is publicly-owned and taxpayer supported. It's an intractable, seemingly unsolvable situation.

One final irony: That site the guy bought the rights to is too small to house his bizjet.
Click to expand...

So what is the airport sponsor going to do with the $135k? Have you bothered to ask?

My first thought is that they did it in order to raise money for the public hangars that the sponsor intends to build. $135k could go a long way if you're getting 90% federal funding for the project.

It also sounds to me like you want to throw stones at these 'rich' folks who are actually spending money on the airport and making improvements. This is a free country, and the grant assurances require the sponsor to make land available for people to build hangars. You're more than welcome to build some and rent them out if you'd like to. :)
 
mondtster said:
So what is the airport sponsor going to do with the $135k? Have you bothered to ask?

My first thought is that they did it in order to raise money for the public hangars that the sponsor intends to build. $135k could go a long way if you're getting 90% federal funding for the project.

It also sounds to me like you want to throw stones at these 'rich' folks who are actually spending money on the airport and making improvements. This is a free country, and the grant assurances require the sponsor to make land available for people to build hangars. You're more than welcome to build some and rent them out if you'd like to. :)
Click to expand...
If only. In February a good friend drew up plans for a large commercial hangar that would have housed at least four planes off the waiting list. I was prepared to provide financial backing to build this hangar. Its location was approved by TXDOT, and its construction was unanimously approved by our Airport Board.

Incredibly, the city council voted it down.

Why? No one knows, for sure, but our best guess is that construction of this hangar would have directly threatened the monopoly on hangars, which would have lowered rents. Currently owners can ask -- and receive -- literally ANY amount of rent for a hangar here.

Like I said, the out of town billionaires own the politicians, and the politicians control the airport. Which is why we are seeking a method of enforcing FAA and TXDOT rules. Sadly, as I suspected, those rules appear to be unenforceable.
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
how dare people use a building that they own to store their own possessions
Click to expand...

I sympathize with this position. I really do. As a libertarian, it goes against EVERYTHING in my to get the government involved in this situation.

However, airports are for aircraft. Period, end of story. As it stands now, half of our hangars are being used for non-aviation stuff, while 21 real, live aviators have no place to house their aircraft. That is a situation that simply cannot be allowed to continue.

I'm truly sorry that some folks foolishly bought hangars on airport property, and I'm sorry they want to use them to store their boats -- but that's a misuse of an incredibly rare and valuable airport asset. There are hundreds of "boat barns" on our island, but only 18 hangars. They need to either put an airplane INSIDE their hangar, or get out.

The problem is -- how in the world can you do that with privately owned hangars? How do you force anyone to do ANYTHING in something they own?

As an aside: I now fully understand why Iowa City absolutely, positively banned the construction of private hangars on the municipal airport. At the time (when we all desperately needed hangars) I thought they were being stubborn and stupid, not accepting "free" hangars, but I see the wisdom of that decision now.
 
docmirror said:
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder where the problem is with this situation? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

We all have theories, but if you've got any insight on the inner workings of the council, I'm all ears.
 
Well, let's review. The airport sits on city owned property, and is managed by the city. A group of aviation enthusiasts went to the city with a plan to spiff it up, add hangars, and provide needed space for people wanting to stay there. The city said no.

This really isn't rocket surgery. What you consider an important and valuable resource, the city has other ideas. My guess is that the airport property, or the over-run zones would be better use if there was a high rise major name hotel, or maybe a condo building with about 150 pricey condos for sale/rent.

It's just one mans opinion here, but from my experience, the tax revenue on airport property, and the surrounding dead zone for safety and noise is possibly only slightly higher than if it were swamp bog. The city has plans, and they don't include flying GA planes in and out of Mustang airport for the foreseeable future. A plane can take 4 people into or out of the town. A bus full of tourists to stay at a nice big hotel prolly sounds a lot better to the council.

But - I could be wrong. Maybe they want to keep that 200ac of land with one runway on it and a few storage buildings producing marginal tax revenues so the rich pilot playboys can use their city runway for their amusement. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top