AOPA sold their aviation insurance business.

TomHaines said:
As noted in previous post: "The project is an effort to educate lending institutions and municipalities about the opportunities for public-private partnerships to help solve the hangar shortage across the country. Municipalities seldom have capital to invest in hangars. This project will explore creative funding strategies to spur hangar development. If it is successful, the hope is that the model can be adapted by other communities."

Supporting pilots and airport infrastructure for pilots has always been a part of AOPA's mission. There is a need that is not being met. Perhaps we can demonstrate for communities how they can improve their airports without using municipal funds or bonds, all of which are particularly hard to get in today's environment.
Click to expand...

So -- who is providing the funding?
 
MichiPilot said:
So -- who is providing the funding?
Click to expand...

AOPA is borrowing the funds, using local banks when possible to educate them about the risks/rewards of such a project at an airport, given most banks have no experience in financing hangars built with private funds on leased public property at an airport.
 
TomHaines said:
AOPA is borrowing the funds, using local banks when possible to educate them about the risks/rewards of such a project at an airport, given most banks have no experience in financing hangars built with private funds on leased public property at an airport.
Click to expand...

So . . . AOPA is on the hook for it, or AOPA members by extension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
airdale said:
Yes. AOPA surveyed all 5,000 public use airports in the United States and to their total astonishment, their home airport was the best candidate for this selfless effort to support pilots and airport infrastructure for pilots.
Click to expand...

What a dumb comment. Do you really think that an airport 3,000 miles away is going to be a better one for AOPA to do this experiment at? Given some of the local government complexities that go into this sort of thing that require regular attendance at various meetings, it would be way easier/cheaper for them to do it locally than anywhere else.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So . . . AOPA is on the hook for it, or AOPA members by extension.
Click to expand...
There is a significant waiting list for hangars at Frederick--and has been for years--and AOPA is committed only to building phase one, which is 30 T hangars and 6 box hangars. Given the demand and current waiting list, there is little risk to capital, especially in the first phase. The other phases will be built only if market surveys show the demand is there. AOPA has reserves that could cover it if it is a complete bust, but that is unlikely and that is not the plan.
 
anything for a low budget guy.....in the $250/mo range?

or will they all be +$500/mo premium luxury digs?

I know this is obvious....but the ones they are destroying are $250/mo. not +$500/mo.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
anything for a low budget guy.....in the $250/mo range?

or will they all be +$500/mo premium luxury digs?

I know this is obvious....but the ones they are destroying are $250/mo. not +$500/mo.
Click to expand...
Pricing not set yet, but given the current newer hangars are $420, I'm certain the new larger ones will be more in that $500 a month range, which is in sync with others in the market. With building costs in the region, unfortunately it's not possible to build hangars in that $250 a month range. Shade hangars might be feasible, but in this climate with wind, snow, and rain, shade hangars aren't very useful around here.
 
Maybe that explains why they haven't returned my email requesting they move forward with my quote...
Now what? Back to Avemco?
 
That's the angle that actually grinds my gears, this insufferable gentrification angle. Same deal with the housing market. Millions of cash broke Americans clamoring for living space in line with their wages, and the only market that's "viable" according to the developers is luxury after luxury apartment complex.

Even if I were to take at face value the notion that the only price point that could support construction of t hangars was the one bedroom apartment rent sized ones, it's just terrible optics for an organization that devotes that much time astroturfing its congregation about having the pulse of the little guy and his sub 10k/yr discretionary investment in the piloting avocation.
 
Well , it's a cinch for me. No more AOPA dues
 
TomHaines said:
Pricing not set yet, but given the current newer hangars are $420, I'm certain the new larger ones will be more in that $500 a month range, which is in sync with others in the market. With building costs in the region, unfortunately it's not possible to build hangars in that $250 a month range. Shade hangars might be feasible, but in this climate with wind, snow, and rain, shade hangars aren't very useful around here.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with the current $250/mo units?

The gentrification fears are correct. Too many of our urban airports are tearing down older, but still viable hangars, to build pretty new ones at twice the price. Of course, those pretty new ones are often box hangars sized for King Airs and Citations, so the guy with the Ercoupe or C-150 ends up getting left out in the cold (literally), and often gets pushed to some other airport.
 
TomHaines said:
AOPA is borrowing the funds, using local banks when possible to educate them about the risks/rewards of such a project at an airport, given most banks have no experience in financing hangars built with private funds on leased public property at an airport.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see a huge problem with some entity doing this...It does seem like another instance of mission creep and a bit self-serving. The same line about illustrating how it can work was used with the aviation center AOPA bought on the field...though it is used to store the AOPA fleet and has never been duplicated anywhere...because having a $50 million org on any other airport is of course not realistic.

It just seems that AOPA continues to jump on every whim of Mr. Baker and his friends...this seems to have that written all over it.

Am I correct to say then, that this will be a revenue stream for AOPA?
 
TomHaines said:
Pricing not set yet, but given the current newer hangars are $420, I'm certain the new larger ones will be more in that $500 a month range, which is in sync with others in the market. With building costs in the region, unfortunately it's not possible to build hangars in that $250 a month range. Shade hangars might be feasible, but in this climate with wind, snow, and rain, shade hangars aren't very useful around here.
Click to expand...
Unless AOPA employees get a sweet deal and fill them....I'd be real surprised if the 20 or so folks paying $250/mo, getting the boot for demolition, pay the +$500 for the new ones. In fact at that price I'll be real surprised if half get takers.....just saying.

Could turn into a good case study in economics and sales price points....what a shame.:confused:
 
The thought that developers/builders have to be schooled in how to profitably build or creatively fund is laughable on it's face. Even in Frederick, Md.

If it's part of AOPA's mission to keep flying affordable for the average Joe, this ain't it.
This isn't adding capacity, it's just making it more expensive. Gentrification describes it perfectly.
 
TomHaines said:
There is a significant waiting list for hangars at Frederick--and has been for years--and AOPA is committed only to building phase one, which is 30 T hangars and 6 box hangars. Given the demand and current waiting list, there is little risk to capital, especially in the first phase. The other phases will be built only if market surveys show the demand is there. AOPA has reserves that could cover it if it is a complete bust, but that is unlikely and that is not the plan.
Click to expand...

I'm not honestly worried about being able to cover it (as an AOPA member). I just feel that they could have been a steward of the process for outside parties (real estate investors, private investors, etc) to avoid having AOPA with any legal stake in the game. Currently, it appears that they are gentrifying an existing low-cost hangar section to replace it with something "shiny and new" for double the price. If this had been done at any airport which didn't house AOPA-staff aircraft or their close personal friends, I wouldn't have too much reservation. It just seems a bit self-serving when you're dropping money on your home airport so that your friends can have some nice hangars to rent. There are hundreds of airports across the nation with waiting lists for hangars, so Frederick, MD is no special example.
 
How many people say get the avionics or major work done at a shop near you so you can oversee it?
Why should AOPA build hangars and try and prove the public/private partnership half way across the country when there is one in their backyard?

Tim
 
I think I'd be on board with this if the hangars are reasonably priced and this is just the first stage of a multi-stage hangar building project in markets where hangars are either unavailable or overly expensive. If nothing else transpires from this, then it's no better than telling my wife that I'm buying a Porsche so that the local bank can hone their auto-financing skills.
 
Challenged said:
I think I'd be on board with this if the hangars are reasonably priced and this is just the first stage of a multi-stage hangar building project in markets where hangars are either unavailable or overly expensive. If nothing else transpires from this, then it's no better than telling my wife that I'm buying a Porsche so that the local bank can hone their auto-financing skills.
Click to expand...

Go back and read what Tom posted. There is a multi year waiting list; and having tried to get a place there before, there is a lot of pent up demand. AOPA has only committed to the first phase, and will then judge market needs to determine future phases.
As for the old hangars, the city has been planning to take them down for years.
In terms of price, there really is not a way to build a fully enclosed hangar and keep the prices as cheap as the old hangars.

Tim
 
the cheaper hangars ($160/mo)are next door....a few miles away in HGR. I did that for a while till I was able to get into FDK. But, that would mean driving 40 minutes.....
 
Tom, did AOPA guarantee the loans? If so, then the experiment is invalid. Any bank, looking at that $82M hoard, would loan pretty much whatever was asked, for whatever purpose was stated, because they would be taking on zero risk. Nothing like the private developer scenario.
 
tspear said:
Go back and read what Tom posted. There is a multi year waiting list; and having tried to get a place there before, there is a lot of pent up demand. AOPA has only committed to the first phase, and will then judge market needs to determine future phases.
As for the old hangars, the city has been planning to take them down for years.
In terms of price, there really is not a way to build a fully enclosed hangar and keep the prices as cheap as the old hangars.

Tim
Click to expand...

Having had a Cherokee in those hangars for almost thirty years, until this spring, I can tell you there's nothing wrong with them a good coat of paint and an oil can wouldn't fix. The reason the city wants them down is so they can put something up and get more $. It's unfortunate AOPA is going to help them do it.

As I said before, if AOPA wanted to stick to the mission, they'd show us how to creatively add capacity, starting with the old soaring center site.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Having had a Cherokee in those hangars for almost thirty years, until this spring, I can tell you there's nothing wrong with them a good coat of paint and an oil can wouldn't fix. The reason the city wants them down is so they can put something up and get more $. It's unfortunate AOPA is going to help them do it.

As I said before, if AOPA wanted to stick to the mission, they'd show us how to creatively add capacity, starting with the old soaring center site.
Click to expand...

I reluctantly renewed my membership this year after being prodded about my auto-renewal credit card info being out-of-date. In all likelihood, I'll let it lapse after this year. I understand that they're the largest lobbying force for GA, but I am continually getting more disillusioned that they do anything of importance. EAA is probably a better fit.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Unless AOPA employees get a sweet deal and fill them....I'd be real surprised if the 20 or so folks paying $250/mo, getting the boot for demolition, pay the +$500 for the new ones. In fact at that price I'll be real surprised if half get takers.....just saying.

Could turn into a good case study in economics and sales price points....what a shame.:confused:
Click to expand...
Just as a point of reference, I was paying on the order of $400 twelve years ago in San Antonio, and about the same when I moved back to DC at HEF for an old hangar, sliding door. About half of the fixed cost for my Commander each year was the hangar.

On the other hand, if you've got a $300K Cirrus, what's it worth to keep in a hangar? Pretty hard to justify for a $20 K 152, fairly easy to justify if you have something valuable. It does put a crimp on the folks building a plane, though. VKX is in the $400 range, though a pretty long drive from FDK. HGR is less expensive, though further from the DC area.

So $500 doesn't seem outrageous to me for a new hangar. If I lived in a rural area, it would seem to be outrageously high.
I'm not even going to talk about whether AOPA is going to sponsor it or not, though I am sure they've run the numbers.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Currently, it appears that they are gentrifying an existing low-cost hangar section to replace it with something "shiny and new" for double the price. If this had been done at any airport which didn't house AOPA-staff aircraft or their close personal friends, I wouldn't have too much reservation. It just seems a bit self-serving when you're dropping money on your home airport so that your friends can have some nice hangars to rent. There are hundreds of airports across the nation with waiting lists for hangars, so Frederick, MD is no special example.
Click to expand...

Once again, the city of Frederick made the decision years to ago to tear down the South hangars. AOPA had nothing to do with that. The master plan for years has also called for more hangars at the north end of the airport. And, as previously noted by others, this was in our backyard, so why not use it as a place to understand public-private partnerships on airports and help solve a hangar shortage problem. If it works, perhaps our learning can be useful to others.

And despite the conspiracy theorists out there, there is no "friends and family" deal for AOPA staff or anyone else on the hangar leases.

And, the AOPA business plan does not call for AOPA to make money on the project, but to break even.
 
Tom....I bet the shortage isn't as bad as the airport managers would have you believe. Some of the same folks are on all the lists in the surrounding areas. Once that bias is removed....the demand is quite a bit less.

FWIW....there is space over at DMW and word is they open up every couple months. It also doesn't help that a few folks are hording hangars(you know who they are...I bet) and subleasing them. If that were enforced a dozen or so spots would open.
 
TomHaines said:
Then why is there a hangar shortage across the nation?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I've never seen any hard published facts or figures that there is, generally speaking. Certainly you hear anecdotal evidence in local metro areas. I've also heard there is a shortage of hangars at rents the average Joe can afford. Tearing the few we have here down and building new ones that rent at twice the price doesn't help the situation any.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
My beef is with the "misison" of AOPA. Independent of the hangar building project, this appears to be outside the scope of the organization I support.
Click to expand...

Over the years, people seemed to have formed an opinion of what AOPA should and shouldn't do. Meanwhile, general aviation is circling the drain. What the industry has been doing in recent decades has not worked and unless someone does something differently, we'll all be headed down that drain.

In an effort to change the course of GA, AOPA has been trying different things in recent years. Our You Can Fly program is developing and has deployed high school aviation STEM curriculum to introduce kids to aviation opportunites in grades 9-12--all free. You can Fly is developing adaptive flight training curriculum and it is developing training programs and resources for flight schools. You Can Fly has started more than 100 flying clubs in the past four years, including 37 in 2018--the resources free to the clubs. It is also supplying support at no cost to some 850 additional clubs in the network. All in the name of giving pilots lower cost access to a variety of airplanes and to bring some community to airports. We've conducted hundreds of Rusty Pilots programs across the country and today more than 6,000 pilots have gone on after those courses to complete the flying portion of their flight review and are back flying--after an average absence from the cockpit of eight years. Some of them have gone on to buy airplanes again.

Friday AOPA will announce it is awarding $1 million in flight training scholarships--100 scholarships of $10,000 a piece--80 for students and 20 for high school teachers.

In addition to advocating for airports and airport access every day--and reasonable fees to use those airports, AOPA is also looking at ways to spur the construction of hangars, which can help revitalize airports, bring businesses on to the field, and give flying clubs a home.

Maybe some of these things over time will make a difference. Some may fail. Others may succeed.

Almost none of the above are in the original AOPA charter. For some of you, it may appear we're coloring outside the box you think AOPA should stay in. Just know that we're straying outside the box on purpose. If someone doesn't show some leadership in GA, there will be nothing left to lead in the next generation or so.

I hope you join us on the journey.
 
Last edited:
TomHaines said:
Once again, the city of Frederick made the decision years to ago to tear down the South hangars. AOPA had nothing to do with that. The master plan for years has also called for more hangars at the north end of the airport. And, as previously noted by others, this was in our backyard, so why not use it as a place to understand public-private partnerships on airports and help solve a hangar shortage problem. If it works, perhaps our learning can be useful to others.

And despite the conspiracy theorists out there, there is no "friends and family" deal for AOPA staff or anyone else on the hangar leases.

And, the AOPA business plan does not call for AOPA to make money on the project, but to break even.
Click to expand...

AOPA didn't create the FDK hangar situation. But to your point that the city long ago made the decision to destroy hangars (in which my Lance resides), why is it only now that a (potential) solution is being rolled out, and not in time to prevent a gap between demolition and "move-in"ready? And certainly not at equitable pricing. As to AOPA being in the hangar business, I agree with others here that AOPA would have served its constituency better by facilitating the process for other developers. The notion that there weren't enough bidders doesn't wash. If AOPA can't network potential bidders in its own community, it doesn't speak well to its outreach capabilities.
 
TomHaines said:
Once again, the city of Frederick made the decision years to ago to tear down the South hangars. AOPA had nothing to do with that. The master plan for years has also called for more hangars at the north end of the airport.
Click to expand...

All plans can be changed. With AOPA's presence on the field, did AOPA make a big push to keep the inexpensive hangars on the South end of the field and add more luxurious digs on the North end? Wouldn't that have been the GA friendly approach?

The current plan is worse than what I see at many urban airports. Those are frequently out of space, so the low man on the totem pole is shoved out of the figurative canoe all to better cater to the guy with a nicer airplane, typically one that burns Jet A. At FDK, it sounds like there was room for the little guy, but he got shoved off (or out) anyway.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Tom, can you clarify what the nature of this support is? :dunno:
Click to expand...
Access to dedicated staff conversant in issues affecting clubs, such as IRS rules, FARs, insurance, and aircraft financing. An online flying club finder for prospective members. In-person flying club leadership seminars around the country. A monthly email newsletter for club leadership promoting best practices. Networking events at AirVenture and sun n fun, among others.
 
Around here, I'd drive 40 minutes out of town for a new T hangar that's $380. If one was available. But they're all rented. In town, I had a hangar that was $400 but so decrepit I was worried about pieces of it falling on my plane. Some long-term tenants there are paying $350 and consider themselves lucky.

Seem to be a lot of folks here with ideas on how to spend others' capital. If you think hangars can be bought or built and rented cheaply for a profit, do it.
 
Lindberg said:
Around here, I'd drive 40 minutes out of town for a new T hangar that's $380. If one was available. But they're all rented. In town, I had a hangar that was $400 but so decrepit I was worried about pieces of it falling on my plane. Some long-term tenants there are paying $350 and consider themselves lucky.

Seem to be a lot of folks here with ideas on how to spend others' capital. If you think hangars can be bought or built and rented cheaply for a profit, do it.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about it if the folks who you pay dues to, to "help" you keep flying affordable, facilitates knocking down your perfectly good $380 hangar and put up a $760 hangar to replace it, rather than building new ones to add capacity?

I know I wouldn't like it. I've been a member since John Baker was president. This is it for me.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
How would you feel about it if the folks who you pay dues to, to "help" you keep flying affordable, facilitates knocking down your perfectly good $380 hangar and put up a $760 hangar to replace it, rather than building new ones to add capacity?

I know I wouldn't like it. I've been a member since John Baker was president. This is it for me.
Click to expand...
Those who bother to read the thread will realize that AOPA had nothing to do with the decision made long ago by the city to tear down the south hangars.
 
TomHaines said:
Those who bother to read the thread will realize that AOPA had nothing to do with the decision made long ago by the city to tear down the south hangars.
Click to expand...

I read the thread. I don't believe you read the part where I told you I was a tenant for quite some time. That decision had been made years ago, and had been rumored for decades, yet they hadn't gotten around to it. AOPA is doing nothing here to relieve the problem, and is in fact working at cross purpose of affordability.
Tell me why you chose to do this, rather than pursue a waiver for the soaring center facility and add more hangar capacity?
 
TomHaines said:
...
Almost none of the above are in the original AOPA charter. For some of you, it may appear we're coloring outside the box you think AOPA should stay in. Just know that we're straying outside the box on purpose. ...
Click to expand...
This is very pernicious thinking. Suppose we were talking about your holdings in a S&P 500 index mutual fund and they told you:

"Almost none of what we are doing is consistent with our published prospectus. Just know that we're straying outside the box on purpose."
​
I think you would object strenuously.

Essentially you're saying "We're so smart and so trustworthy that we can do whatever we judge to be right, regardless of prior promises or constraints."
 
airdale said:
This is very pernicious thinking. Suppose we were talking about your holdings in a S&P 500 index mutual fund and they told you:

"Almost none of what we are doing is consistent with our published prospectus. Just know that we're straying outside the box on purpose."
​
I think you would object strenuously.

Essentially you're saying "We're so smart and so trustworthy that we can do whatever we judge to be right, regardless of prior promises or constraints."
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. Applying investment fund rules to an advocacy organization is inappropriate. If AOPA was spending money for purposes unrelated to general aviation, I would have a problem with that, but that's not what's happening here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top