What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Private hangar transition to airport-owned

JordanGrant

Well Known Member
We are going through a little airport drama recently and it's made me wonder about what others have experienced around the country. The hangar land leases here are written such that the airport may take possession of the hangar structure (a free-standing building) at the termination of the land lease period. So I'm wondering - have any of you had experience with a privately-owned hangar transitioning to an airport-owned hangar after a refusal to renew a land lease? What did the new lease terms ended up looking like to you? At one airport here, the director has stated his plan NOT to renew land leases, and instead take possession of the hangars so he can triple the lease rate, under the logic that the airport would then be leasing a hangar structure and land. Is this a typical experience out there?

Thanks for any insight you have,
 
Drama going on at KFFC

Same drama going on here in Peachtree City,ga
The faa policy seems to be prompting this. Once any organization taps into the ?free? government money source they own the organization in spite of it being the people?s money in the first place

We had a huge turnout of Falcon RV members last week at our airport authority meeting to fight this battle

Our airport managers keep quoting the faa as requiring these policies
 
Lease

If he wants be unreasonable about it contact
An attorney and see if there can be at least an
Injunction filed, if not there?s always that dreaded
Spontaneous combustion?
 
I used to own a hangar on a city owned airport. The land lease for the hangar was an initial period of 20 years and an option to renew for another 20. I believe that kind of arrangement is not unusual in this situation. If the lease does not have a right to renew clause, you will probably have a hard time fighting it.
 
David, this lease has a renewal clause, but with "mutual consent" of the airport. So, if they decide not to consent, there will be no renewal. That's what it sounds like the airport is going to do, and I don't think there are any realistic legal options to fight it. The airport seems to be on pretty solid legal footing. I know those kinds of terms are out there in other places, but I'm curious how many airports have actually gone all the way on that kind of option and taken over the buildings. I'm aware of a couple of situations where the airports stopped renewing leases so they could re-purpose the land under the hangars, but I'm not personally familiar with any that actually took over the buildings and then just turned around and leased them out at higher rates. It's probably happened, I'm just not familiar with them personally.
 
We are going through a little airport drama recently and it's made me wonder about what others have experienced around the country. The hangar land leases here are written such that the airport may take possession of the hangar structure (a free-standing building) at the termination of the land lease period. So I'm wondering - have any of you had experience with a privately-owned hangar transitioning to an airport-owned hangar after a refusal to renew a land lease? What did the new lease terms ended up looking like to you? At one airport here, the director has stated his plan NOT to renew land leases, and instead take possession of the hangars so he can triple the lease rate, under the logic that the airport would then be leasing a hangar structure and land. Is this a typical experience out there?

Thanks for any insight you have,
Does your existing lease allow you to remove the hangar at the end of the lease?

My airport previously gave out leases that, at the end of the term (25 years), allowed the county to terminate the lease or sign a new lease at its discretion, but also allowed the owner to remove the hangar if they so chose. This is good for us, in that it gives the county incentive to offer a new lease to the existing owner. This is the situation I'm in until my existing 25-year lease is up in 2021.

However, the current attitude and lease language in newer leases includes a "reversion" clause. This means that at the end of the next lease (length still to be determined), the county will assume ownership of my hangar. This appears to be a growing trend as airport authorities, especially those in cash-strapped localities, see renting out originally privately built/owned hangars as a future revenue source.

As long as there is a reversion clause in your new lease, I doubt there's much you can do about it, short of trying to get airport users to pressure the airport authority into better lease terms, perhaps on the grounds that it would bring in more new leaseholders rather than drive the existing ones away.
 
Last edited:
I?m wondering, since they don?t technically yet own the structure can?t the group of hanger owners just tear down and remove their structures. Taking the hangers down and people moving their planes to another airport I think would send a pretty strong message to the airport board.
 
I'm on the airport board of our local city owned airport. The ground lease requirements were just recently updated and more closely resemble FAA wishes. We have a 20 year lease with an additional 20 year option by mutual agreement. We have no individually owned hangers and no applicants.

As a developer/builder I expressed my opposition to the situation to no avail. We desperately need hangers at our airport but the city will not fund them unless they get a grant. My argument centered basically around the fact that no one in their right mind would take the financial risk to construct hangars and then give them to the city after 20 years if the city chose to not renew. Heck with the rent structure in the area it will take 10 or more years to just pay them off. Now the city is discussing assessing a lease rate hike if you do not fly often enough or buy fuel from them. This will not happen but it just goes to show the mindset. What they will do however is just not renew the year to year leases they have when renewal time comes around to hopefully fill the hangar with a plane that is used often enough according to their criterion.

Issues like this are prevalent across the country where there is a shortage of hangar space and cities and counties own the property most of which was given to them as abandoned air bases. If you are in an area where there is space in excess - lucky you. For the rest of us we just have to deal the best we can with these unfair leases and hope for the best, or join a private airport community and build, buy or lease there.

And for those that want to fight city hall - well good luck to you. Unless they have violated a FAA regulation or mandate there is no way FAA or the State DOT will get involved and when they do they just seem to drag their feet to the point of non-involvement. Oh and by the way, you get to pay legal fees twice - yours directly and theirs through your taxes.
 
I’m wondering, since they don’t technically yet own the structure can’t the group of hanger owners just tear down and remove their structures. Taking the hangers down and people moving their planes to another airport I think would send a pretty strong message to the airport board.


That will depend upon the terms of the lease. It is very common for any "attached" improvement to become a permanent part of the property, not removable without the owner's permission.


In other words, ask a (local) lawyer.
 
Lease

This may all stem from the no ?through the fence? operations policy the FAA is pushing. Access to the airport from privately owned hangers might be considered through the fence even though they are on airport property. A local airport has been on a campaign to buy out private hangers because of this. The difference on these is the land the hangers are on is privately owned even though they are located inside the airport perimeter. The county sold them the land years ago and now they want it back. It sounds like some airport mangers are trying to raise revenue by jacking up the hanger rent on you rich airplane owners. Ya got to pay your fair share! :eek:
 
I?m wondering, since they don?t technically yet own the structure can?t the group of hanger owners just tear down and remove their structures. Taking the hangers down and people moving their planes to another airport I think would send a pretty strong message to the airport board.
And that's the leverage you have to re-negociate your lease before the structure becomes airport property for $1. I have seen them renewed with another option and I've seem them not renewed.
 
I?m wondering, since they don?t technically yet own the structure can?t the group of hanger owners just tear down and remove their structures. Taking the hangers down and people moving their planes to another airport I think would send a pretty strong message to the airport board.

Some of these older leases date back to the times when Port-a-Ports were a common low cost hangar structure.

They also got around the property tax laws by having trailer registrations just like mobile homes used ti have.

Since these were technically portable, once the lease ran out the owner could theoretically fold it up and trailer it off to another location. :)

In practice, these portable hangars become permanently attached to the ground over the years.
 
Jordan curious as to witch airport your at ? Mine Farmvile KFVX only has privately owned hangars on one year land leases. Frankly I think the leases should mirror the FAA grant funding time limits at that lessees could be assured that they can safely invest in their hangars without concern of being booted off the field after making improvements to the structures.
 
Happening here too..

Our airport ,which is privately owned has been going through a year long dramatic lease battle that has resulted in 25 plus hangar vacancies, and a myriad of modified or contested leases. The airport owners have no actual on-site management and are trying to oversee the operation from far away. We are hoping it is just a phase that will pass, but has taken a tight knit great aviation community to the breaking point at times, with seemingly no compassion for those whom have paid the bills for the last several decades.We have been told by the owners it is all in their full liability protection,but it has come at a cost to the current and future tenants. Sad to see it is not only here that its happening.:mad:
 
Yes, we had a land lease tenant with two privately owned hangars. He dismantled one and hauled it away. The other is now city property and leased to the CAP.
 
VAF's size and activity level would probably serve as a great (non-political, if that is possible) watchdog and knowledge pool for the issue of where the planes live.

I'll soon lose my nice setup shared with another RV-6 as the airport moves a mile to a new runway without hangars ready. I assume the airport board and county will off pad leases as they never got serious about building hangars. They set up what could be 24 T hangar pads.

This thread is in part why we'll just go to a private strip hangar home. The 2 more local GA airports get way north of $300/month.
 
Last edited:
If you want to build a private hangar at our airport, you put in a request and it gets "considered". Unfortunately, unless you are severely well connected politically (not just well connected) it doesn't happen. The waiting list for a "T" hangar here is at 179 names and slowly growing. It seems the attitude is "We have plenty of people in line waiting so if you don't like what we do, go somewhere else."

:mad:

FWIW: They are in the process of adding two buildings which will increase "T" hangar spaces by 23. They are mainly funded by a state grant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top