FBO (Mercury Air) doubling hanger rent to run off GA at BHM.......is this legal?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

no it isn't.

Why not?

Unless, of course, the leasing agreeement prohibits subletting.


If person "A" were smart, she would sub-lease the hangar to person "B" for a
profit.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

no it isn't.

Why not?

for one, not many NIMBY goons are successful opposing building new
homes and apartments. otoh - not many NIMBY goons fail to prevent
airport "expansion"

so, why do you think it is?

--
Bob Noel

"Craig" wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
|
| 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.
|
|
| From a developer's standpoint CJ, are you willing to lockup the half
| million or more that would be required to build at an airport like
| that for up to 5 years before you could even turn the first shovel of
| dirt? What about the airports that have room but get sued along with
| the developer every time someone tries to build or expand....willing
| to commit money there?
| You can't always assume that it's the airport or FBO's fault that
| there are not more hangars available or being built.
|
| A good example is Denton, Tx. It took us almost 15 years to get rid of
| the anti-growth people in the city council and administration. They've
| built and permitted more hangar space in the last 12 years than all of
| the rest of it's history.
|


Obviously, in a case like this, the airport is not being managed by the
airport 'management.' In the case of Denton, the airport was really being
(mis)managed by the city council and administration.

Given the ability to make reasonable business decisions, I believe that an
airport can be a good investment. Unfortunately, the political and
regulatory climate you cite are far too common. Another favorite: you can
build hangars, but only for a twenty year lease, after which the city seizes
your hangars without compensation. Then the idiots wonder why no one wants
to build hangars.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

If airports were managed properly, they would charge market rent for
hangars
and other space.

how is market rent set for a product/service whose supply is
restricted?

By supply and demand

It's not free supply and demand when the supply is artificially
restricted. Thus the concept of "market rent" doesn't make sense.
In the true supply and demand scenario, increased demand would
increase supply. That isn't possible (a fact you recognize below).

What would you do with real estate in general? Supply is artificially
restricted because there are parks and other open space. There are
undoubtedly people who say the the price of housing is too high because the
supply of land is artificially restricted by airports.

Mike
MU-2

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

no it isn't.

Why not?

for one, not many NIMBY goons are successful opposing building new
homes and apartments. otoh - not many NIMBY goons fail to prevent
airport "expansion"

so, why do you think it is?

--
Bob Noel

1) Limited supply based on land availability
2) Demand based on the same factors as real estate
3) Direct competition with other land uses
4) Similar pricing dynamics

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:


Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

no it isn't.

Why not?

for one, not many NIMBY goons are successful opposing building new
homes and apartments. otoh - not many NIMBY goons fail to prevent
airport "expansion"

so, why do you think it is?

1) Limited supply based on land availability
2) Demand based on the same factors as real estate
3) Direct competition with other land uses
4) Similar pricing dynamics

That doesn't make it "exactly" like real estate supply.

but let's look at each of those points.

1) KBED and other airports in this area, an area with little
unbuilt land, have enough airport property to build hangars for
everyone on the waiting lists. Would anyone like to claim that
there are enough buildable lots for homes in this area?

2) While having a place live (home, apartment) and a place
to work (the workplace) are basically essential, having a place
to hangar an airplane is not essential for anyone. This is
a major difference in the demand.

3) Finding a place to build a hangar competes with only
some other land uses. Only an idiot would build a home or
a hospital next to 11-29 at KBED. There are factors limiting the
ability to build homes which don't effect the ability to
build hangars (e.g., sewer, water)

4) "Similar pricing dynamics" would is circular.

--
Bob Noel

In article , "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

It's not free supply and demand when the supply is artificially
restricted. Thus the concept of "market rent" doesn't make sense.
In the true supply and demand scenario, increased demand would
increase supply. That isn't possible (a fact you recognize below).

What would you do with real estate in general? Supply is artificially
restricted because there are parks and other open space. There are
undoubtedly people who say the the price of housing is too high because
the
supply of land is artificially restricted by airports.

well, if we want to be ridiculous, we could claim that all land use
is restricted because the earth is limited in size...

What percentage of buildable land (for homes) is held in parks and
open space?

What percentage of buildable land (for hangars) is held hostage
by airport "managers" or by anti-airport NIMBY goons?

--
Bob Noel

"C J Campbell" wrote:
True. And if frogs had wings, no doubt other amazing things would happen.


You are obviously unaware of the giant flying vampire toad of Florida. :-)

Oh, ****. Florida is only 20 miles away! First it was Formosan termites from
New Orleans, now this. I'm surrounded.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Tom S." wrote:
Hangers (like anything else) should rent at market rates.

Except when hangar supply is artificially limited by a public
airport's
governing authority, either because they give a single FBO a monopoly
or
because they prohibit additional hangar construction. In such cases
it
is
very reasonable to regulate hangar fees to avoid gouging.

The same governing body that restricted the supply in the first place?
That's reasonsable?


Amen.
Such monopolies are relatively common, it seems, and tend to suppress
general aviation around the country. In my city, for example, one FBO
controls all the rented tiedowns and hangars at both airports via a
sweetheart deal with the city Airport Authority. Attempts to build more
hangars are stonewalled and rents are artificially high.

Do you see the contradiction there?

Uh, yes - I plead guilty to speed reading the previous post.

I didn't mean to say "Amen" to rent control, but rather to the idea that the
market for rental hangars is often not a free market.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM