Its fun to have any hope of finding a hangar grated like cheese.

[MarkH]

Don't get me wrong, I am a realist and I don't think my Yankee will ever live under a roof, but there is the tiniest dust mite of hope that I may have a hangar one day.

But videos like this don't help.

Don't get me wrong, I like the channel and I like watching his videos, but this is kinda infuriating.

 

[DFH65]

Watched that this afternoon. The whole time I was thinking what a waste of space.

 

[MarkH]

Honestly, if airports were building hangar space based on demand I would love this. Car guys like Hoovie would probably get along well with pilots like us, and in a supply and demand economy more demand would result in more supply.

But that's not how it works at airports. While planes wait on multiyear hangar lists, there are hangars filled with cars, building supplies and other things that could just as easily be stored off airport. Until someone looks at airport utilization and says "this airport isn't being used" and instead of asking if its not being used because of lack of space to store a plane, they just sell it to a developer to become McMansions.

 

[mondtster]

Honestly, if airports were building hangar space based on demand I would love this. Car guys like Hoovie would probably get along well with pilots like us, and in a supply and demand economy more demand would result in more supply.

But that's not how it works at airports. While planes wait on multiyear hangar lists, there are hangars filled with cars, building supplies and other things that could just as easily be stored off airport. Until someone looks at airport utilization and says "this airport isn't being used" and instead of asking if its not being used because of lack of space to store a plane, they just sell it to a developer to become McMansions.

What you need to remember is that the airport sponsor likely wasn’t involved with building that hangar, aside from a land lease.

Want a hangar? Build one. If you can’t afford to build one then you’re stuck waiting for someone with money to build one for you, then lease it to you.

 

[eman1200]

I like grated cheese. I prefer to grate my own whenever possible. BIG difference than the pre-shredded cr@p.

 

[jrcox19]

What you need to remember is that the airport sponsor likely wasn’t involved with building that hangar, aside from a land lease.

Want a hangar? Build one. If you can’t afford to build one then you’re stuck waiting for someone with money to build one for you, then lease it to you.

While I agree with that approach, it doesn't always work. Many areas are unwilling to offer any kind of land lease to build private hangars.

 

[hindsight2020]

Want a hangar? Build one. If you can’t afford to build one then you’re stuck waiting for someone with money to build one for you, then lease it to you.

That characterization of the dynamic is reductionist af. That would be true if airport managements were acting bona fide. They're not. They're picking winners and losers in order to gentrify the recreational footprint out of existence.

Spare us the socioeconomic smear; I could readily afford to build a cheap T-hangar. The airports around here would never give me the land access for such a small footprint, and that's by design. Ditto for airparks who won't sell me a parcel of land to drop in a sub 200K home to gain access to a runway. Ever heard of snob-zoning? As American as apple pie.

 

[mondtster]

While I agree with that approach, it doesn't always work. Many areas are unwilling to offer any kind of land lease to build private hangars.

If they take federal money they must work with people who want to build a hangar. Sometimes it can be very challenging, but having the right attorney can help an airport sponsor see the error in their way.

There have been two airports near me that were broken open by the same attorney after years (decades) of getting nowhere. Part of the problem with previous attempts was that the people wanting to build the hangar were always looking for a handout from the city/federal government. Another problem was that both cities didn't want to relinquish control of things. The airports suffered as a result and after things got opened up there has been positive progress.

 

[mondtster]

That characterization of the dynamic is reductionist af. That would be true if airport managements were acting bona fide. They're not. They're picking winners and losers in order to gentrify the recreational footprint out of existence.

Spare us the socioeconomic smear; I could readily afford to built a cheap T-hangar. The airports around here would never give me the land access for such a small footprint, and that's by design. Ditto for airparks who won't sell me a parcel of land to drop in a sub 200K home to gain access to a runway. Ever heard of snob-zoning? As American as apple pie.

See my response above.

 

[Jumpmaster]

This is happening at my home drome. We have only a few lots left for development. Word is they are going to people willing to put up structures in the 10,000+ sq ft range. I’ve met one of the new hangar builders and he claims he is going to be turning it into a condo for GA planes where you “buy” the parking space and then you will have a monthly fee for the common area, taxes and insurance. The airport has plenty of room for expansion, but the County Commissioners won’t approve expansion plans until Airport Management can figure out how to pay for the infrastructure costs associated with the expansion. So naturally, they raised the hanger rent rate to raise additional revenues. And the screw turns.

 

[DaleB]

Watched that this afternoon. The whole time I was thinking what a waste of space.

Huh. Usually when I watch one of Hoovie's videos, I'm thinking more waste of oxygen than waste of space.

 

[FormerHangie]

I like grated cheese. I prefer to grate my own whenever possible. BIG difference than the pre-shredded cr@p.

Make America Grate Again!

 

[jd21476]

I used to really watch his videos when he was actually doing Hoopties but his channel has changed so much and now its like he will do anything to make a buck. He went from buying $1k cars at auction to three Lamborghinis

 

[MarkH]

If they take federal money they must work with people who want to build a hangar. Sometimes it can be very challenging, but having the right attorney can help an airport sponsor see the error in their way.

There have been two airports near me that were broken open by the same attorney after years (decades) of getting nowhere. Part of the problem with previous attempts was that the people wanting to build the hangar were always looking for a handout from the city/federal government. Another problem was that both cities didn't want to relinquish control of things. The airports suffered as a result and after things got opened up there has been positive progress.

That's great, and important, if you have the time. But in order for me to make a decent living it seems I have to move ever 2-5 years, so a 2 year legal battle followed by a six month construction time would hardly be worth it. Instead I visit airports and put my name on hangar lists knowing that by the time my number is called I will have moved again because the only way to get a raise or promotion is to change jobs. My name is still on the lists in Atlanta because I can see a realistic situation where I move back from California before a hangar becomes available.

 

[bflynn]

I have little sympathy for airport management that allow hangars to be full of non aviation stuff and then cannot understand why their airport is failing. Hint, airplanes buy fuel. RVs and cars don’t.

 

[Wagondriver]

It is my understanding that at most airports it is a legal requirement per the lease that it be used to store an airplane. I bought two engines off of a non-flying home built. They were keeping the airframe in the hangar so as not to lose the lease.

 

[AA5Bman]

This is a train wreck of an issue at our Class C airport. Their leases say you HAVE to park an airplane in the hangar. And for hangars that are fully enclosed, there’s plausible deniability that, short of an inspection, there actually is a plane in that hangar.

But there are people that use their SHADE hangars to park toys. A guy right next to where I park uses his shade hangar to park a truck and camper. Can you imagine that? Commercial airplanes taxiing by shade hangars full of RVs just sitting there in plain sight. Insanity. I have asked the airport operations about this and they just shrug and say “as long as they’re paying the rent”.

This is why it took me FOUR YEARS of waiting to get a shade hangar... what a stupid system.

 

[midwestpa24]

Now I am only one airport manager of 2,000+ airports in the US, but I do feel the need to at least defend some of us.

First of all, hangars shall only be used for aeronautical use. Airports that are allowing otherwise, that have received federal grants in the last 20 years, are in violation of their grant assurances.

For an airport, usually as a government body, to build new hangars is a tough sell. Outside of major metro areas, rental rates usually aren't high enough to fund construction. Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize homes for "rich-guys toys" isn't popular for the general public. That isn't my quote or line of thinking by the way, I'm a average Joe with an airplane too, so I get it.

We also usually report to an either politically appointed or elected body, often people with little to no interest in aviation. We usually don't create policy, we are just tasked with implementing it whether we agree with it or not. There is also an expectation by said officials, and the FAA, for airports to be as revenue neutral as possible, which is hard for smaller airports.

Just my view from "The Other Side"

 

[EdFred]

Now I am only one airport manager of 2,000+ airports in the US, but I do feel the need to at least defend some of us.

First of all, hangars shall only be used for aeronautical use. Airports that are allowing otherwise, that have received federal grants in the last 20 years, are in violation of their grant assurances.

For an airport, usually as a government body, to build new hangars is a tough sell. Outside of major metro areas, rental rates usually aren't high enough to fund construction. Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize homes for "rich-guys toys" isn't popular for the general public. That isn't my quote or line of thinking by the way, I'm a average Joe with an airplane too, so I get it.

We also usually report to an either politically appointed or elected body, often people with little to no interest in aviation. We usually don't create policy, we are just tasked with implementing it whether we agree with it or not. There is also an expectation by said officials, and the FAA, for airports to be as revenue neutral as possible, which is hard for smaller airports.

Just my view from "The Other Side"

Then you have the idiots that vote. For us it had to go on the ballot. A temporary and super small 2 year millage that would that be removed and then a further tax reduction after that because the construction of the new hangars would then make the airport 100% financially independent from the city/county. The millage would fund the hangar construction, pay back the city/county/taxpayers, and in 5 years every tax payer would be ahead/paying less in taxes. But you can guess how that vote went because all they saw was 1 year out. People are blind idiots.

 

[Grum.Man]

Outside of major metro areas, rental rates usually aren't high enough to fund construction.

I can’t wrap my head around this concept. Sure there are some airports where this would apply. At most airports at least around here you have a 60+ plane waiting list. The average row of t-hangars at my field holds 36 airplanes at $300.00 per month. This is as close to guaranteed sustained income as you could ever get. The hangars will be there for 30+ years and require little to no maintenance if done properly.

there are self storage facilities popping up all over the place that I highly doubt have a better payback than hangars as a busy airport.

 

[mondtster]

I can’t wrap my head around this concept. Sure there are some airports where this would apply. At most airports at least around here you have a 60+ plane waiting list. The average row of t-hangars at my field holds 36 airplanes at $300.00 per month. This is as close to guaranteed sustained income as you could ever get. The hangars will be there for 30+ years and require little to no maintenance if done properly.

there are self storage facilities popping up all over the place that I highly doubt have a better payback than hangars as a busy airport.

I know where midwestpa24 is at and I’m not too far away. If you charged $300 for a t-hangar it would probably sit empty because that would be so far above the norm that people would move elsewhere.

I don’t know what a t-hangar rents for at his airport but the average in this area is probably around $125. There was a mass exodus at the airport I’m based at around the time that hangar rent created $100/mo.

It has been my observation that the airports in this area that are doing well are the ones that allow people to build a hangar if they want to and the city stays out of things. The airport seems to die when the city wants to exercise a tight grip on what happens at the airport.

 

[wsuffa]

Then you have the idiots that vote. For us it had to go on the ballot. A temporary and super small 2 year millage that would that be removed and then a further tax reduction after that because the construction of the new hangars would then make the airport 100% financially independent from the city/county. The millage would fund the hangar construction, pay back the city/county/taxpayers, and in 5 years every tax payer would be ahead/paying less in taxes. But you can guess how that vote went because all they saw was 1 year out. People are blind idiots.

Many of them have been fooled by the elected officials too many times - they don't believe that the tax rate will ever go down. If there's more revenue the county board/executive will find a way to spend it rather than give it back. That's why so many proposals like hangars get rejected. You're better off if the county can back private debt (like they do with PPP roads around here) - the debt is private but guaranteed by the government if ther is a default. A lot of folks don't like that either, but in some places it can be done without going to the voters.

 

[Grum.Man]

I know where midwestpa24 is at and I’m not too far away. If you charged $300 for a t-hangar it would probably sit empty because that would be so far above the norm that people would move elsewhere.

I don’t know what a t-hangar rents for at his airport but the average in this area is probably around $125. There was a mass exodus at the airport I’m based at around the time that hangar rent created $100/mo.

It has been my observation that the airports in this area that are doing well are the ones that allow people to build a hangar if they want to and the city stays out of things. The airport seems to die when the city wants to exercise a tight grip on what happens at the airport.

I could certainly understand if rent was that low. Here average rent is between $250 and $350 per month. I had an old wooden t-hangar that was about to fall apart for a while at $175 per month.

 

[weilke]

It is my understanding that at most airports it is a legal requirement per the lease that it be used to store an airplane. I bought two engines off of a non-flying home built. They were keeping the airframe in the hangar so as not to lose the lease.

If its not written right into the land-lease, every lease on a obligated airport is required to have a clause that makes the lease subservient to any federal and state regulations applicable to the airport. If a piece of land is listed as 'aeronautical' in the airport master plan filed with the feds, it is supposed to be used for just that. You are not supposed to run a custom motorcycle shop out of a back garage at the FBO hangar and you can't use a hangar to store roof trusses. Who built the hangar doesn't matter, as long as it is built on aeronautical land, the airport sponsor is required to structure their contracts in a way that ensures that they can enforce the federal provisions.

 

[chemgeek]

I'm the longest serving member of the airport commission for our municipally owned airport. We would love to build and rent hangars. The reality is that it is nearly impossible for a municipality to capitalize the construction of hangars based on the expected rental income. Essentially, return on investment time exceeds their useful lifetime at reasonable rental rates, and there ARE significant maintenance costs that add to ongoing cost. I see the bills in our monthly financial records. Unfortunately, the FAA will not allow any AIP funds to be used for revenue-generating project, so the feds are out as funding partners. We have managed to wrangle rare but opportune state development grants to build T-hangars, and that has made it possible to absorb capitalization costs, and have installed 18 brand new T-hangars in the last 5 years. We currently have about 2-3 vacancies. We also have one, corporate-size, owner-built hangar on our airport property with a 99-year property lease. There is room for more private or corporate hangars, as outlined in our master plan, but the capitalization costs are a killer. You have to be quite wealthy to justify building your own. But we would welcome offers to build. These are revenue generators for us.

The second issue that plagues airports is storage of inactive aircraft. While all of our hangar space is occupied by an aircraft, some hangar space is grossly outnumbered with non-aviation junk. (One hangar I know rivals Fibber McGee's closet.) I think this happens everywhere. We do have a policy that encourages the occupancy of active aircraft. Aircraft that buy fuel at our airport get up to $960 per year rebate on their hangar rental fees based on fuel purchases. So hangar queens are paying a premium for their hangars. Despite this policy, about 50% of our tenants purchase not one drop of fuel annually. It is almost impossible to root out the non-flying planes. They just pay more to store their rotting plane corpses. That is depressing, but the reality of much of private plane ownership. I can tell who flies regularly by observing who shovels out their hangar doors during the winter months. My hangar door on my side of my hangar block is pretty lonely...the current pandemic environment, with many owners financially strapped, has not helped generate GA activity.

I'm lucky in that our little municipal community of 3,000 is supportive of our airport, the last remaining public use airport in our county. We used to be self-sufficient financially, but the last 5 years has required more municipal support to keep things going. But as public airports go, we are very inexpensive to operate to the local taxpayer. As the economy picks up and our associated airpark fills up with businesses, we may become more revenue neutral again, but the finances are a continual challenge.

 

[UngaWunga]

There's plenty of hangars at my local field that are full of cars. There's a woodworking shop that fills two. They just tore down the older open hangars to put in more enclosed hangars. In doing so, they're raising hangar fees and chasing out the smaller experimental pilots.

 

[Grum.Man]

I'm sure every airport is different but I still don't buy the fact that the payback exceeds useful life of the hangars. Maybe if you build expensive ones with electric doors and such but why spend that type of money? Back to my local airport for example. They will not build additional hangars but had no problem spending 5+ million on a new Terminal building. Where is the payback of that? The old one wasn't exactly falling down. In fact it was very nice and still fairly new by terminal standards. They recently spent money upgrading the security gates from passcode to a key fob. They have spent tons of money upgrading the water and sewer systems in hopes that more corporate opportunities will arrive, can't really imagine there is a huge payback in that either. Then again I guess that's why I'm not running the airport or on the board of directors. Those slots are all reserved for local wealthy business men and non pilots.

 

[EdFred]

I'm sure every airport is different but I still don't buy the fact that the payback exceeds useful life of the hangars.

When you run bean counter numbers you can make the payback time say whatever you want it to say. You can always figure in extra crap to make it look "unprofitable".

 

[Jeff767]

I'm sure every airport is different but I still don't buy the fact that the payback exceeds useful life of the hangars. Maybe if you build expensive ones with electric doors and such but why spend that type of money? Back to my local airport for example. They will not build additional hangars but had no problem spending 5+ million on a new Terminal building. Where is the payback of that? The old one wasn't exactly falling down. In fact it was very nice and still fairly new by terminal standards. They recently spent money upgrading the security gates from passcode to a key fob. They have spent tons of money upgrading the water and sewer systems in hopes that more corporate opportunities will arrive, can't really imagine there is a huge payback in that either. Then again I guess that's why I'm not running the airport or on the board of directors. Those slots are all reserved for local wealthy business men and non pilots.

More than likely the 5 million came from the feds. They throw money at airports for terminals but not hangars.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You're missing a few details.....it wasn't their money that was spent on that nice new terminal building.

I'm sure every airport is different but I still don't buy the fact that the payback exceeds useful life of the hangars. Maybe if you build expensive ones with electric doors and such but why spend that type of money? Back to my local airport for example. They will not build additional hangars but had no problem spending 5+ million on a new Terminal building. Where is the payback of that? The old one wasn't exactly falling down. In fact it was very nice and still fairly new by terminal standards. They recently spent money upgrading the security gates from passcode to a key fob. They have spent tons of money upgrading the water and sewer systems in hopes that more corporate opportunities will arrive, can't really imagine there is a huge payback in that either. Then again I guess that's why I'm not running the airport or on the board of directors. Those slots are all reserved for local wealthy business men and non pilots.

 

[DaleB]

Many of them have been fooled by the elected officials too many times - they don't believe that the tax rate will ever go down. If there's more revenue the county board/executive will find a way to spend it rather than give it back. That's why so many proposals like hangars get rejected. You're better off if the county can back private debt (like they do with PPP roads around here) - the debt is private but guaranteed by the government if ther is a default. A lot of folks don't like that either, but in some places it can be done without going to the voters.

This. I’m inclined to vote against levies and bond issues even when I think the intent is good, simply because taxes never seem to go away. “We’re only going to charge this levy for five years”... then the next bunch decides to extend if for another ninety.

 

[Grum.Man]

You're missing a few details.....it wasn't their money that was spent on that nice new terminal building.

I understand that, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation that they can find that kind of money for non value added expenses but not for a guaranteed income.

 

[ktup-flyer]

If I was in the area, I’d ask him if he’d rent out a spot in it. Could be a good opportunity for an owner.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

At our airport....FDK...home of the world famous AOPA our locals got federal moneys to remove....yup, teardown....over 20 hangars. We were told that there is a "possibility" of building new hangars, but I'll believe that when I see it. In the mean time, a year or so later, 20 folks were forced out with no hangar....most went way to other airports. Very sad.
Very grating......

I understand that, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation that they can find that kind of money for non value added expenses but not for a guaranteed income.

 

[chemgeek]

I'm sure every airport is different but I still don't buy the fact that the payback exceeds useful life of the hangars. Maybe if you build expensive ones with electric doors and such but why spend that type of money? Back to my local airport for example. They will not build additional hangars but had no problem spending 5+ million on a new Terminal building. Where is the payback of that? The old one wasn't exactly falling down. In fact it was very nice and still fairly new by terminal standards. They recently spent money upgrading the security gates from passcode to a key fob. They have spent tons of money upgrading the water and sewer systems in hopes that more corporate opportunities will arrive, can't really imagine there is a huge payback in that either. Then again I guess that's why I'm not running the airport or on the board of directors. Those slots are all reserved for local wealthy business men and non pilots.

The terminal building and security features are all fundable by federal AIP or state aviation grants. I'll bet your local airport didn't self-fund those. They almost assuredly received federal or state grants to cover 90-95% of the cost. Hangars are not cheap to build. It's not the electric doors that make them expensive, it the site preparation, the steel and pavement required. The financial math just doesn't work out for self-capitalization. We've done this calculation many times. If the ROI was shorter, we would do it. But it isn't. No municipality can afford to tie up hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars for 15-30 years waiting for payback. That is the frustrating part of AIP funding. Things we could really use to be more financially sustainable, like T-hangars and a self-fueling fuel facility, are off-limits. We've been lucky to occasionally get funding for projects like this through state transportation funding. The cost of a modern fuel farm is also eye-popping.

Our airport also has an associated business park, for which installation of utilities like water, sewer, natural gas, and electric is essential to attracting business. Although it has been a long slog, the airpark property is now completely sold out and will be completely occupied with tax-paying businesses in the next couple of years. The airport directly benefits from property sales, and indirectly from the businesses located there. The airpark development was aided by help from the FAA two decades ago when we acquired the airport.

Our Airport Commission has three pilot-owners on it, a majority of the commission. I think that is helpful to the municipal board for making informed decisions about aviation. It is also educational for the pilot-owner members in terms of what it takes financially to operate an airport.

 

[chemgeek]

I understand that, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation that they can find that kind of money for non value added expenses but not for a guaranteed income.

Just to be clear, FAA AIP funds cannot be used for revenue generation projects. These include but are not limited to T-hangars and fuel farms. The FAA will fund renovations of terminal/maintenance buildings, runway/taxiway infrastructure, and security. Some state transportation grants, usually limited in scope and frequency, will allow for funding of revenue generating projects.

 

[fasteddie]

Hangars are not cheap to build. It's not the electric doors that make them expensive, it the site preparation, the steel and pavement required. The financial math just doesn't work out for self-capitalization. We've done this calculation many times. If the ROI was shorter, we would do it. But it isn't. No municipality can afford to tie up hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars for 15-30 years waiting for payback.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but isn't this the exact kind of situation that municipal bonds are for?

 

[chemgeek]

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but isn't this the exact kind of situation that municipal bonds are for?

Yes, assuming you don't have other priorities for these bonds, like roads, schools, etc. There is a limit to how much you can bond at one time. T-hangars are going to normally be way down the list.

 

[chemgeek]

Just for reference, I looked up our last state DOT grant for the most recent 10-bay T-hangar we built. Total project cost was $830,000. That includes required engineering, FAA compliance, site preparation, pavement for access to the taxiway/runway, utilities, and of course erection of the hangars. At $300 per month rent, assuming full occupancy, and not including maintenance costs, the ROI is at least 23 years if fully self-capitalized. With state DOT funding, our match was $83,000, which is an ROI of 2-3 years. And we are not tying up capital (which we don't really have) or bonding capability for 20+ years.

 

[EdFred]

Just for reference, I looked up our last state DOT grant for the most recent 10-bay T-hangar we built. Total project cost was $830,000. That includes required engineering, FAA compliance, site preparation, pavement for access to the taxiway/runway, utilities, and of course erection of the hangars. At $300 per month rent, assuming full occupancy, and not including maintenance costs, the ROI is at least 23 years if fully self-capitalized. With state DOT funding, our match was $83,000, which is an ROI of 2-3 years. And we are not tying up capital (which we don't really have) or bonding capability for 20+ years.

Part of that is going to depend on where you are, what local construction costs are and what ******** is required by local municipalities. That was not the number we had at our airport when we went to build a few years ago. Building a hangar in Deplorablesburg is a whole lot cheaper than Bluesville - and that ROI can be gotten back a whole lot quicker.