"C J Campbell" :
Not that unpopular. I look at these airfields with 10 year waiting lists
for
hangars, and I can't help but think that the rent is way too low.

It certainly is. If the renter could double his rates and still fill the
hangars, he should do so. However, where the supply is restricted by a local
government, a monopoly or a connivance of the two, free market rules don't
apply. Even though there are people willing to pay the high prices, those
prices are artificially high if the supply is artificially low.

Frankly, the way most airports are managed, they deserve to
fall prey to developers.

Indeed. In the case of my Airport, the FBO doesn't give a rap about the
light GA customers. It (the FBO) doesn't even bother to kill the weeds
growing through the cracks in the GA ramps, let alone sweep the ramps or
paint the hangars and shelters. Its strategy is to raise rents steadily
until a shelter or hangar stays vacant, and hold there a while, meanwhile
making zero investment in the enterprise. Because the FBO is a monopoly,
aircraft owners can like it or lump it.

This is the kind of lazy management that a monopoly can get away with. It is
short sighted and foolish, since it discourages people from owning and
operating aircraft at the field, endangering the very existence of the
airport.

If airports were managed properly, they would charge market rent for
hangars
and other space. They would be profitable, and more hangars and office
space
would be built, lowering prices over all until an equilibrium was reached.

True. And if frogs had wings, no doubt other amazing things would happen.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM