Hangar Queen Owners -- WHY?
Jay Honeck
large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically meaningful
response:
WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in the
summer.
Now, I'm sure SOME of those 150 have moved when I'm not around to witness
it. But with the snow on the ground, it's pretty easy to discern activity.
Most of the hangars haven't been opened in a over a month.
(Now, I know many pilots "hang it up" in the winter -- which makes me wonder
about their proficiency in the spring! -- but I'm talking about these planes
NEVER moving -- ever.)
My family spends part of every day at the airport. We fly our Warrior every
couple of days, all year round. At first I wasn't willing to believe this
inactivity, but I have checked with the line guys over an extended period of
time to verify my numbers. These planes are simply in storage, for all
intents and purposes.
WHY would someone tie up between $30K - $150K in a hangar queen, and then
pay $125 - $200 per month for the privilege of doing so? And would YOU fly
a plane that is only run every other year? (Month?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
John Armbrust
start at 250 and go up (450). With regard to the hangar queen question, I
suspect it is a bit like ordering a big meal at a restaurant- "It sounded
good at the time!"
--
John W. Armbrust
Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
news:86umfn$fvb$1...@sword.avalon.net...
Peter Gottlieb
situation for a pilot who wants to fly to propose to an owner of one of
these?
Issues:
Work required to bring up to airworthy state
Insurance
Cost of operation
Costs of maintenance
Wear and tear
Scheduling
"Rent-to-own" scenario
If there are so many around, surely there are deals to be made?
Peter
brien
the boats that are in the slips that have stuff growing on them that look
like they have not moved in years must be something to do with the ownership
of it weather it be an airplane of boat?
Jerry Kurata
other parts of their lives. Flying has to be fit around a 50-60 hour work
week, kids, school meeting, etc. It's just one of the many things and
priorities.
Larry Dighera
wrote:
>WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
>WHY would someone tie up between $30K - $150K in a hangar queen, and then
>pay $125 - $200 per month for the privilege of doing so?
Hey, I've got a partner like that. He flys our airplane about once or
twice a year. It works out well for me, but I don't understand why he
doesn't sell his seldom used share in the airplane. It plainly isn't
a matter of money, because he could easily rent an aircraft when he
needed one for considerably less than his cost to own part of this
one.
It is a strange phenomenon. But, some people need to own an airplane
whether they use it or not. It's got to be a psychological (as
opposed to logical) aberration.
Larry Dighera
LDig...@worldnet.att.net
Jay Honeck
often work more. And I find time for aviation.
Of course, I sometimes seem to be the only guy at the airport that flies
WITH his family, instead of DESPITE his family... (It sure helps to have a
wife who is also a pilot!)
Bottom line: If I didn't have the time or the inclination to fly, I sure
wouldn't tie up $50K in an airplane, and then keep paying every month to
store it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
Jerry Kurata <jer...@acrues.com> wrote in message
news:_iEk4.18298$Fb1.3...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Scott Moore
up derelects is that you would probally pay more, perhaps a lot more,
to fix one up than to just buy a plane that is in good shape and flying.
For the first, I harbor a suspicion that once a plane goes down hill,
it takes a lot of money to bring it back, much more than the total spent
on doing regular maintenence over the time of its decline.
The second thing is an oddity of human nature. Some of the WORST deals
I have ever seen are on decaying junk, be it cars, boats or houses. Folks
are in deep deep denial about the shape of what they own. In their heads,
it is still as they bought it, just needs a little "fixing". This is
why I think some of the worst shape planes on my block are also the most
expensive. The owner paid a lot for a turbo 310, and wants to sell it for
a lot, even if the new owner would have to virtually remake it. So there
it sits.
Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum is a
> large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically meaningful
> response:
>
> WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
>
> There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
> probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in the
> summer.
>
> Now, I'm sure SOME of those 150 have moved when I'm not around to witness
> it. But with the snow on the ground, it's pretty easy to discern activity.
> Most of the hangars haven't been opened in a over a month.
>
> (Now, I know many pilots "hang it up" in the winter -- which makes me wonder
> about their proficiency in the spring! -- but I'm talking about these planes
> NEVER moving -- ever.)
>
> My family spends part of every day at the airport. We fly our Warrior every
> couple of days, all year round. At first I wasn't willing to believe this
> inactivity, but I have checked with the line guys over an extended period of
> time to verify my numbers. These planes are simply in storage, for all
> intents and purposes.
>
> WHY would someone tie up between $30K - $150K in a hangar queen, and then
> pay $125 - $200 per month for the privilege of doing so? And would YOU fly
> a plane that is only run every other year? (Month?)
Peter Gottlieb
owner wanted $1 million for it, it was appraised at $165k. Later he dropped
his price to $500k, and eventually lost it to the town for nonpayment of
taxes. Like you said, I've seen horrible deals on junk cars, too. Why
should planes be different?
Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:38933B51...@cisco.com...
Ed Sullivan
one an explanation.
Ed Sullivan
>
>Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
>news:86umfn$fvb$1...@sword.avalon.net...
Colin Rasmussen
> The fact of the matter is since we own them, it's none of your damn
> business what we do or don't do with them. We owe no
> one an explanation.
>
> Ed Sullivan
It's no one's business, but it makes us all wonder about what kind of a doofus
would own and maintain a plane in order not to fly it. It's like going out to
dinner but not eating; buying condoms but not having sex; getting a new
lawnmower every year when you like in an apartment. The list is endless. It
doesn't make you look real bright.
I suspect your response will that we're all just jealous because you can and we
can't. Reminds me of the old joke, "Why does a dog lick his balls...because he
can".
Colin
Bear
make a fist with his paws.
Duster
You pose a good question, I am one of the people of
which you speak. Right now, I don't have the time or
money to make my plane operational. I would give half
ownership to anyone for bringing it up to standards but the catch is that it
would have to be based near me so that I could have use of it. It is a
Mooney Super 21 which isn't
damaged. Also, I would sell it as is but I haven't advertised it. I guess
that's something that I could do this week end.
James Bieker
Dale
you wishing you could. Be careful he might bite you.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jack
> ...it's none of your damn business.... We owe no one an explanation.
Obviously, a certain number of these so-called "hangar queens", are actually being kept in reserve for covert missions.
They only _look_ unserviceable. ;)
Jack
--
___________|___________
\_[ ]_/
\(O)/
{}/^\{}
===|=====|=====|=====|=====|===
©1998 nAsgrp.com
< MAILTO:bar...@earthlink.net >
< http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/lou.html >
HLAviation
>doofus
>would own and maintain a plane in order not to fly it. It's like going out
>to
>dinner but not eating;
It's actually more of an emotional attachment thats rather akin to putting a
horse out to pasture after its too old to ride rather than sending it off to
the killers. I've got an old car (65 Volvo P 1800) that I keep sitting around
just because I like to look at it. I don't drive it anymore, but the car
served me extremely well for 5 years in CA and I put over 235000 miles on it (I
drive ALOT). What should I do with it? Quite a few of those hanger queens
I'd reckon belong to old fliers who have lost their medicals and are a fond
memory of better days, maybe of a lost spouse who loved that plane, the reasons
are endless, but generally emotional. Now if an emotional attachment to an
inanimate object may make me a "dufus" but that doesn't bother me much, I've
been called a lot worse.
Now as for...>"Why does a dog lick his balls...because he can".
A bit rude eh? Besides I bet you wish you could, I know I do.=;)
If you look at most irrational human behavior, there is generally an
emotional reason behind it. Some time when you're wandering the field and an
old man or woman is out by their "Hanger Queen" just go up and say " Hey lets
go fly that old bird" , just don't be surprised if they take you up on it. They
may just be looking for an excuse and someone with a medical. You might also
learn the stories behind that plane. I earned access to several planes that
way.
Ed Sullivan
You are probably one of those when asked to make an offer for an airplane come up with a price that wouldn't even cover
the price of an annual. There are plenty of airplanes for sale for legitimate buyers who don't want something for
nothing, get out of my face, piss ant. And any of the activities listed below would still be our business. And the dog
would probably let you if you talked to him real nice.
Ed Sullivan
>In article <389373d2....@news.qnis.net>, Ed Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The fact of the matter is since we own them, it's none of your damn
>> business what we do or don't do with them. We owe no
>> one an explanation.
>>
>> Ed Sullivan
>
>It's no one's business, but it makes us all wonder about what kind of a doofus
>would own and maintain a plane in order not to fly it. It's like going out to
>dinner but not eating; buying condoms but not having sex; getting a new
>lawnmower every year when you like in an apartment. The list is endless. It
>doesn't make you look real bright.
>
>I suspect your response will that we're all just jealous because you can and we
>can't. Reminds me of the old joke, "Why does a dog lick his balls...because he
>can".
>
>Colin
JOHNSHILL
flash back of the Bass flame war)...It would be interesting for an economist
(not me) to expound on the impact on the price of general airviation due to
hangar queens being held off the open market.
HLAviation
>(not me) to expound on the impact on the price of general airviation due to
>hangar queens being held off the open market.
>
Not much impact on the price of planes, although if they would get put into the
market the price of parts would go up with the demand.
Lynn Hall
I am currently in a small hangar were a Cessna 140 sat for about four years
unused. The Cessna owner's and his wife used to fly all the time, being
retired, every weekend they were off someplace. Well, sadly the wife became
too ill to fly and suffered for about four years until she passed away.
They never did sell the plane, during this time, I think they hoped that
some day she would be able to fly again, but she never did.
After she passed away the plane was sold and their hangar came on the
market, eventually I moved into it. I think the hangars have a few stories
to tell as well. Its really very sad. I think that sometimes these planes
are also owned by widows and they simply don't want to let go no matter the
cost. Planes become part of the family and its hard for people to let go of
their "loved ones".
Lynn
Scott Moore
> drive ALOT). What should I do with it? Quite a few of those hanger queens
> I'd reckon belong to old fliers who have lost their medicals and are a fond
> memory of better days, maybe of a lost spouse who loved that plane, the reasons
When (not IF) I lose my medical, that airplane is going on the block to pay
for a nice sailboat. Hell, you can get stinking drunk doing that, no one cares.
Bob Noel
hlavi...@aol.com (HLAviation) wrote:
or down as the old/new owners realize it's too expensive to fix
them so they part them out instead.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
HLAviation
>> >It would be interesting for an economist
>> >(not me) to expound on the impact on the price of general airviation due
>to
>> >hangar queens being held off the open market.
>> >
>>
>> Not much impact on the price of planes, although if they would get put
>into the
>> market the price of parts would go up with the demand.
>
>or down as the old/new owners realize it's too expensive to fix
>them so they part them out instead.
>
>--
>Bob
In a couple of years around aviation, I've never seen the price of parts go
down. =;)
HLAviation
>for a nice sailboat. Hell, you can get stinking drunk doing that, no one
>cares.
IIRC Lucy Killea <sp?> from CA was sponsoring a bill a few years back where a
boater could not have an alchoholic beverage within reach. There are also BWIs
being issued in all states right now.
Kyler Laird
>It is a strange phenomenon. But, some people need to own an airplane
>whether they use it or not. It's got to be a psychological (as
>opposed to logical) aberration.
I think we've concluded that private aircraft ownership
*typically* does not make financial sense, so I agree
that you shouldn't limit yourself to that line of
thinking, but it's not clear to me that it's as
illogical as you imply it is.
I've been feeling like a hangar queen owner recently.
Our plane has been in the shop a lot, and now I'm
afraid to fly because it's so cold here. I don't want
to harm the engines. (I've been dreaming of a Reiff
heater system, but for now I have engine covers and
heated cowl plugs.)
The last time I flew, however, was on the spur of the
moment with a friend. We left early in the morning,
flew 270 nm away at medium altitudes (I didn't yet
have the O2 system working.) and came back late at
night.
There's little chance that we could have done this in
a rental. There wouldn't have been one available and
the fastest one here is a Seneca I - no turbo. We
were climbing around cloud layers, so having turbos
was a real benefit.
Also, when things get sticky (like they did on the
way home), I want to be in *my* plane. It's far
from perfect, but at least I know it.
Financially, our plane is about the dumbest things I
have ever purchased, but it does have value over a
rental.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>The fact of the matter is since we own them, it's none of your damn business what we do or don't do with them. We owe no
>one an explanation.
Thankfully there *are* still people here who are willing
to share without being forced by some "debt" of an
explanation.
--kyler
Stephen King
> HLAviation wrote:
>
> > drive ALOT). What should I do with it? Quite a few of those hanger
queens
> > I'd reckon belong to old fliers who have lost their medicals and are a
fond
> > memory of better days, maybe of a lost spouse who loved that plane, the
reasons
>
pay
> for a nice sailboat. Hell, you can get stinking drunk doing that, no one
cares.
Ohhh, I think a lot of people care. I'll assume that you were making a joke
and know better, right? When you rip the bottom out of a sailboat on a
breakwater at five knots, you and your passengers can end up just as dead as
if you put your flying machine into a mountainside at 200 knots. Read the
newspapers. Fortunately, it seems to be less of a problem now than in the
past. MOST people are becoming convinced that when you operate machinery
that weighs in from a ton to many thousands of pounds, where normal
pressures on running rigging mount up to hundreds of pounds, where a simple
misstep can put you into the cold sea on a dark night... you oughta be cold
sober. Just as sober as when you're operating an airplane.
Stephen King
Pilot and Sailor
Colin Rasmussen
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 23:44:50 GMT, Colin Rasmussen
> <co...@nospam.pombe.usask.ca> wrote:
> You are probably one of those when asked to make an offer for an airplane
> come up with a price that wouldn't even cover
> the price of an annual. There are plenty of airplanes for sale for
> legitimate buyers who don't want something for
> nothing, get out of my face, piss ant. And any of the activities listed
> below would still be our business. And the dog
> would probably let you if you talked to him real nice.
>
> Ed Sullivan
Wo pissed in you wheaties?? I simply wondered aloud why someone would own
someting but not use it. If that offends you then maybe you have a little guilt
you need to deal with. HL offered some reasonable explanations in why one might
have a plane but not fly. Relative to what he said, my comments were pretty
broad, and in specific cases unjustified.
As far as saying what I would probably offer for a plane, you're about as
accurate as I've been in wondering aloud. But of course, you argue like my Dad
used to. When you haven't got a point, change the subject.
Colin
p.s. It's pissante, not piss ant.
Colin Rasmussen
(HLAviation) wrote:
In aviation, does the price of anything go down ??
Colin
Michael
GA airport within 50 miles has a long waiting list for hangar space, and
prices are going up. Must of the space is taken up by planes that hardly
ever fly.
JOHNSHILL <john...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000129230106...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> Now that the tone of this thread has taken a civil turn, I'll jump in (I
had a
> flash back of the Bass flame war)...It would be interesting for an
James Bieker
>
>Colin
Outdated avionics?
CVBreard
>was sponsoring a bill a few years back where a
>boater could not have an alchoholic beverage within reach. There are also
>BWIs
>being issued in all states right now.
>
Noted in passing - it's against Louisiana law to ride a horse while under the
influence.
Re hangar queens, one of the quiet advantages of renting over owning (and I've
done both) is that I don't feel 'bad'/guilty that I can't get out and fly 'my'
airplane enough....
Jeff Cook
> What about the impact on hangar availability and price? Where I lie every
> GA airport within 50 miles has a long waiting list for hangar space, and
> prices are going up. Must of the space is taken up by planes that hardly
> ever fly.
It sounds like you're putting pressure in the wrong place. If there's an
increased demand because people buy hangar space to use as storage, then
the airport should be building more hangars to make more money...not
kicking out half its customers.
How difficult is it to get more hangars built? Does it usually require
local government approval (*cough*), or is it just an investment
question?
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
http://www.cookstudios.com
Washington DC area
Bob Noel
darn...I forgot the smiley. sorry about that.
Jerry Kurata
Here in Silicon Valley, 1 out of 9 people have a net worth in excess of $1
million. I know a number of people that have retired in thier 30's with 10
Million or more in the bank. To them it is no big deal to leave a $100,000
plane sitting in the hangar or a $50,000 boat sitting down at the Marina.
Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
news:86vbrt$l57$1...@sword.avalon.net...
> Agreed, but with one minor caveat: MY "normal" work-week is 72 hours. I
> often work more. And I find time for aviation.
>
> Of course, I sometimes seem to be the only guy at the airport that flies
> WITH his family, instead of DESPITE his family... (It sure helps to have
a
> wife who is also a pilot!)
>
> Bottom line: If I didn't have the time or the inclination to fly, I sure
> wouldn't tie up $50K in an airplane, and then keep paying every month to
> store it!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Warrior N33431
>
> Jerry Kurata <jer...@acrues.com> wrote in message
> news:_iEk4.18298$Fb1.3...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> > Many of the people I know who don't fly their planes much are just busy
> with
> > other parts of their lives. Flying has to be fit around a 50-60 hour
work
> > week, kids, school meeting, etc. It's just one of the many things and
> > priorities.
>
>
Lee Phillips
about it, either.
Lee
Lee Phillips
1) a Grand Commander (680-FL) with a bad engine (GTSIO540) and a high time
one, a spar mod that needs done, a nose gear that is damaged, and a rudder
that has broken lose. The owners pay the tiedown and taxes, and seem to
dream of fixing it. It's most likely use is beer cans. It would cost maybe
$130k to put in the air safely.
2) A geronimo conversion. Never flown after a fresh annual following the
conversion, it is involved in a very nasty divorce of an 80 year old man and
his 50 year old wife. He flew, she doesn't. Activity with the airplane
simply stopped a number of years ago. He could afford it before the divorce,
now the ownership is unclear.
3) There is a man who has a Luscombe that has suffered the effects of
sandstorms, sun and weather for more than 20 years. He's going to fix it up
and fly it when he retires. If he lives that long.
4) There is a C-210 (with struts) that is flown and owned be a retired
fellow. It gets annualed once a year, and flown soon after by the owner, who
is arrogant enough that he seems to feel things like medicals and BFRs that
he can't get are immaterial. Everyone runs for cover when he mounts his
steed. No one killed yet. So far, he seems to wake up before it is out of
gas, and has always managed to get it on the ground so he can walk away from
it, in spite of scaring the Holy BeJeesus out of onlookers.
Lee
Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
luc...@metrowerks.com
"Jay Honeck" <hon...@avalon.net> wrote:
Oh boy..... Oh boy oh boy........
You just had to ask this one, and get me going, didn't you....... You
just had to do it..........
Well you asked for it....... You're going to get it..........
> I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum
is a
> large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically
meaningful
> response:
>
> WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
#pragma rant on
If you can ever figure this one out, let me know. If I knew the answer
to this question, I'd probably be able to get some folks to fly with me
and Capt. America IV. This is one of the primary reasons (although not
the main reason) I'm returning full-force to general aviation from
ultralight flying. I love my plane, but I'm OUTTA there when it comes
to UL'ing in general.
There're few things in this world that would drive me to Prozac (class
III med permitting) more than a hangar full of airplanes and no bodies
out flying them..... And, boy, we got 'em in spades around here.......
> There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
> probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even
in the
> summer.
#pragma rant continue
Beleive me, general aviation in the Austin area is an angry hornet's
nest of activity compared to the ultralight activity. The local club
has 42 members, of which only 2 fly (one is my BFI); the current
president has never flown an airplane of any type.
Isn't that special..........
But now, on to the hangar queens......
I hangar with 6 other ultralights and light planes. Capt. America IV is
the only regularly flying plane in mine. Behind me is a Quicksilver MX.
The owner is an older gentleman who flies it about once every 2 or 3
months; sometimes it sits for 6 months at a time. Right now, it's
sitting there with the prop off it (it's lying on a table up against
the hangar wall) and has been like this for about 3 weeks.
Next to it is a Starlight single-place experimental. Beautiful, small,
fast airplane (120mph cruise at 3 to 4 gph with a Rotax 447!). The
owner had it for over 6 months before he even began flying it (problem
with his medical). After getting that all straightened out, though, he
began to come out fairly regularly on Sat. and Sun. We sometimes even
flew together (me flat out at WOT, him at MCA and we could almost fly
side-by-side). One day he had a prop strike. The next flight after
replacing the prop (no damage to motor, thank god. Wood prop helped),
he had a hard landing, cracking the gear and breaking a wheel pant.
Now, months are starting to go by without any repair work being done
it - that familiar fine layer of silt is building up on the wings and
fuse. All it needs is repair to the gear (a PITA with a belt sander but
probably 2 or 3 days work that can be done with the gear on the plane
and about 100 bucks for carbon fibre and some resin, whatever), a close
inspection for other damage, a signoff and away it goes. Nope.......
There it sits.......
Ok, now I can probably understand these two cases. The MX owner is
getting on in years, and certainly probably has other irons in the fire
preventing him from flying frequently now. The Starlight owner is
probably understandably spooked by his two incidents; I probably would
be to. But to _never_ fly again? _never_ pick up the pieces and start
back up with it?
That ain't all........
The saddest and least explicable, however is the Kolb Firestar (single-
place) in the very back of the hangar. Magnificent machine - EXPERTLY
built and covered with Stits by previous owner and a very nice grey
finish. Rotax 503 DCDI with dual carbs and "B" gearbox (late ser. no.
provision 8 motor!) w/68" tennessee wood prop. *45 hours TTSN on entire
plane*. The owner has not even come out to the ultraport in _almost 2
years_. I bought my plane, flew it 70 hours, took it away for 3 months
to do the rebuild, brought it back and put 50 more hours on it, all
without ever having met the guy. The plane has not been touched (by
him) in all that time. He refuses to sell the plane! Last summer, they
were moving one of the planes out and, in the process punched a hole in
the Stits on the top of the wing. The hole is STILL THERE even though
the owner was told about it in person last year. Still won't fix and
fly or sell the plane!
Couple of us locals offered to buy it, fix it up and fly it as our own
club plane. Won't sell it...! Engine is probably a block of rust by
now - 3000 bucks and 45hrs TT......
I won't even go into the other two MX's and weight shifts in the hangar
in the front. Guess what, they don't ever fly either.
Where's that Prozac...<shuffle shuffle>....
I can't fathom this last case with the Kolb at all; the owner is a
younger, healthy professional. I can see a possible work/time
constraint going on here too, but to NEVER fly the plane? And such a
nice one, too. I could also understand being nervous or apprehensive. I
sometimes am too in CA IV; but that's why I'm an anal SOB about the
maintenance. I'm always going after that sucker with a wrench and
parts, measuring or greasing or what have you. That keeps the nerves
down and the plane safe.
Maybe they don't want to do the maintenance? Maybe they're scared of
flying? Dunno.....
Like I said, though, GA is a cloud of mosquitoes compared to the UL
world around here. I was actually excited when I showed up for my
instrument ground school class last Wed. night and saw 7 whole guys
plus the CFII! Maybe it was just the coffee..... But maybe it was so
wild to actually see that many other pilots all together in one place!
I was out last night doing maneuvers and landings to stay sharp (bad WX
last couple days cancelled last two instrument lessons). There was a
Katana and another guy in a 172 in the pattern. Wow, it was like a
flyin.....
#pragma rant off
Oh well, maybe I should just get out more, or take up some other
hobbies......
Glad someone else feels the same way though........ Ok, I'm done.
Lucien S.
PP-ASEL.
Captain America IV.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott Moore
the helm, but thats a personal thing. I also have yet to go on a trip
with more than one person where someone didn't bring beer, and I also
have yet to see hide nor hair of the Coast Guard.
I'm guessing you are talking about power boats. Those guys get liquiored
up and killed in astonishing numbers.
Neat lecture aside, I was referring to the fact that boating is unlicenced.
When I am creaking around at 70 and the FAA yanks my licence on general
purposes, I'd shed a tear and put the sales proceeds on a really big boat.
Hell, you can die at the helm for 1/2 hour before anyone looks up from
their beer to notice (here I go again....).
Stephen King wrote:
>
> Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> wrote in message
> news:38943492...@cisco.com...
> > HLAviation wrote:
> >
> > > drive ALOT). What should I do with it? Quite a few of those hanger
> queens
> > > I'd reckon belong to old fliers who have lost their medicals and are a
> fond
> > > memory of better days, maybe of a lost spouse who loved that plane, the
> reasons
> >
> > When (not IF) I lose my medical, that airplane is going on the block to
> pay
> > for a nice sailboat. Hell, you can get stinking drunk doing that, no one
> cares.
>
Scott Moore
buy and put up their own prefab hangars. IMHO.
Scott Moore
>
> Larry Dighera <LDig...@socal.rr.com> writes:
>
> >It is a strange phenomenon. But, some people need to own an airplane
> >whether they use it or not. It's got to be a psychological (as
> >opposed to logical) aberration.
>
> I think we've concluded that private aircraft ownership
> *typically* does not make financial sense, so I agree
> that you shouldn't limit yourself to that line of
> thinking, but it's not clear to me that it's as
> illogical as you imply it is.
Good point. All pilots are a little bent. The guys who hide
airplanes in a hangar are just the creme-de-la-creme !
Lets not forget the biggest airplane hider of all !
HLAviation
>buy and put up their own prefab hangars. IMHO.
>
The field off of which I work operates exactly that way as do many airports
nation wide.
HLAviation
>up and killed in astonishing numbers.
That is the background although the bill would have applied to ALL boaters
which was what raised all the stink.
>, I was referring to the fact that boating is unlicenced.
Really? I hold a 500 ton Ocean Masters with a sailing endorsement. Thats a
license. Came up on turn of the century schooners. Some states I believe New
Jersey is one, require licenses for recreational boaters.
But then not everyone likes sailing, not that I can figure that out.=;)
d...@stanwyck.com
>
> You pose a good question, I am one of the people of
> which you speak. Right now, I don't have the time or
> money to make my plane operational. I would give half
> ownership to anyone for bringing it up to standards but the catch is that it
> would have to be based near me so that I could have use of it. It is a
> Mooney Super 21 which isn't
> damaged. Also, I would sell it as is but I haven't advertised it. I guess
> that's something that I could do this week end.
So where is it??
Peter Gottlieb
increase in the short term.
Tending to increase costs short term:
More demand for repair services and parts
Tending to decrease costs long term:
Increased operational fleet inducing more competition, higher
availability of services to deal with increased demand, improved components
becoming available for retrofit.
Just a guess, mind you.
Peter
Peter Gottlieb
boarded by Coast Guard and BATF agents with guns drawn and had their boat
turned inside out. They were cited for having a cooler of beer with several
empties and had to spend quite a bit on legal fees. They sold the boat
shortly after that incident. And they didn't even have the engine running.
HLAviation <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000130094027...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> IIRC Lucy Killea <sp?> from CA was sponsoring a bill a few years back
d...@stanwyck.com
>
> I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum is a
> large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically meaningful
> response:
>
> WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
>
> probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in the
> summer.
If the basis for your 200 is number of hangers not opened, then you need to
realize that many people rent hangers and store cars, tractors, restoration work
in progress, furniture, etc., especially when the rental rate they get is less
than the prevailing self-store rates for the same size space or when the project
requires a space with access to electricity and permission to do work on a
vehicle. Most self-store sheds don't allow storage of flammable materials like
fuel, etc.
I know some airports have required that all hangers hold airplanes (or kit-built
projects that may or may not someday be an airplane), but many others will rent
to anyone who has the money to pay the rent.
Don Stanwyck
Scott Moore
more apparent than in the idea that heavy demand should be met with rationing.
Duster
> > Mooney Super 21 which isn't
> > damaged. Also, I would sell it as is but I haven't >
> So where is it??
About 30 miles ENE of VCT.
Kyler Laird
>The hangar shortage could be solved overnight by giving renters the option to
>buy and put up their own prefab hangars. IMHO.
Indeed!
When we restored our Aztec in Michigan City, we were
able to use a beautiful (heated!) hangar. We found
that hangars there are privately owned on ground that
is leased from the city. What a fantastic arrangement!
Here at Purdue (West Lafayette, IN), hangar space is in
high demand. One large company just built their own
for their planes, but that was a special arrangement.
I'd love to be able to lease some ground and put up a
nice hangar.
It's a shame that federally-funded airports don't have
an agreement to provide hangar space as needed (at a
reasonable price).
Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
the rent appropriately." Unfortunately, I suspect that
the hangar queens would be the last to go. Many of us
who do get off the ground can barely afford it as is.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>I know some airports have required that all hangers hold airplanes (or kit-built
>projects that may or may not someday be an airplane),
Purdue does this.
>but many others will rent
>to anyone who has the money to pay the rent.
I was saddened the day that we delivered the check
to puchase our Aztec. We pulled into the airport and
saw signs for "self storage." The owner had decided
to forget about planes altogether.
--kyler
Lee Phillips
waiting lists at both the airports I frequent, so the non-aviation folks get
short shrift. At the airport with publicly owned hangars, there is a policy
that moves non aviation folks out when someone with an airplane is waiting.
Mostly, folks hereabouts wouldn't spend the money to hangar a derelict.
Lee
<d...@stanwyck.com> wrote in message news:38950A2A...@stanwyck.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum is
a
> > large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically
meaningful
> > response:
> >
> > WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
> >
> > There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
> > probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in
the
> > summer.
>
> If the basis for your 200 is number of hangers not opened, then you need
to
> realize that many people rent hangers and store cars, tractors,
restoration work
> in progress, furniture, etc., especially when the rental rate they get is
less
> than the prevailing self-store rates for the same size space or when the
project
> requires a space with access to electricity and permission to do work on a
> vehicle. Most self-store sheds don't allow storage of flammable materials
like
> fuel, etc.
>
> I know some airports have required that all hangers hold airplanes (or
kit-built
> projects that may or may not someday be an airplane), but many others will
rent
> to anyone who has the money to pay the rent.
>
> Don Stanwyck
Bob Noel
(Kyler Laird) wrote:
> Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
> hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
> the rent appropriately."
raise the rates high enough and you can bet the hangar
shortage will go poof...and not because more hangars will
be built!
Ralph Coffman
how much and would you consider a trade for some land iin SC
John
Kyler Laird wrote
>
>It's a shame that federally-funded airports don't have
>an agreement to provide hangar space as needed (at a
>reasonable price).
in the same post Kyler Laird also wrote
>
>Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
>hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
>the rent appropriately."
So which is it, kyler? Socialized hangar space? Or capitalism?
Both simultaneously? JG
Scott Moore
> Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
> hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
> the rent appropriately." Unfortunately, I suspect that
> the hangar queens would be the last to go. Many of us
> who do get off the ground can barely afford it as is.
>
> --kyler
Certainly that is the proposed solution here. But my airport
has quite a bit of land that is unused, and a big section
that is both unused and leased out to a flower stand that
occupies perhaps 1/8 of it, and a chrismas tree lot that
occupies 1/4 of it for a month or so.
The next airport down deals with its space crunch by storing
huge numbers of those portable office things (trailerable
buildings).
Both run by the city, both have huge waiting lists. Both have
hangars in the $350 range, which I would think would be enough
to satisfy the cost thing.
[of course, should any airport adminstrator be reading this and
think you recognise the airport I am talking about, realize of
course that I don't have a tiedown there..... no really !]
BARR DOUG
but because they have fond memories of the airplane and is a possesion that
gave them pleasure, they don't want to sell it. Not unusual for them to keep
it till they die. That and they don't need the money they would get upon sale.
In article <s961vdd...@corp.supernews.com>,
brien <br...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Seams to be the same type of person who owns a boat at the marina you know
>the boats that are in the slips that have stuff growing on them that look
>like they have not moved in years must be something to do with the ownership
>of it weather it be an airplane of boat?
>
>Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
>news:86umfn$fvb$1...@sword.avalon.net...
>> I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum is a
>> large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically
>meaningful
>> response:
>>
>> WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
>>
>> There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
>> probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in the
>> summer.
>>
Kyler Laird
>>It's a shame that federally-funded airports don't have
>>an agreement to provide hangar space as needed (at a
>>reasonable price).
>in the same post Kyler Laird also wrote
>>
>>Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
>>hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
>>the rent appropriately."
You did note that I pointed out a problem
with this, right?
>So which is it, kyler? Socialized hangar space? Or capitalism?
>Both simultaneously? JG
If it's government-funded, there should be
gov't controls on how it's used/made
available.
If it's privately-owned, the owners should
set the prices how they see fit.
--kyler
Brad Benson
] On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 23:44:50 GMT, Colin Rasmussen <co...@nospam.pombe.usask.ca> wrote:
] You are probably one of those when asked to make an offer for an airplane come up with a price that wouldn't even cover
] the price of an annual. There are plenty of airplanes for sale for legitimate buyers who don't want something for
] nothing, get out of my face, piss ant. And any of the activities listed below would still be our business. And the dog
] would probably let you if you talked to him real nice.
Like the '48 Bonanza at our field, which hasn't flown since 1972, is
missing a number of parts, and would cost (A&P estimate) approximately
$45,000 to get airworthy. The owner refuses to sell it however,
claiming that it will (magically) be worth "something" someday.
Heck, I'd
I don't care what you do with your piece-o-dogmeat hanger queen or why
you haven't sold it; I just think you're taking up valuable hanger
space that could be used by people with real airplanes.
Jeff Cook
> I just think you're taking up valuable hanger
> space that could be used by people with real airplanes.
People who want to pay for resources ARE A GOOD THING. Can't you see
that more cash flow on the field is good for every single person there?
Put your frustration where it belongs. You need MORE HANGARS to *supply*
the *demand*. Time to talk to the airport manager, the FBO, or the
airport commission. And time to apologize to people who invest in the
airport.
Brad Benson
] People who want to pay for resources ARE A GOOD THING. Can't you see
] that more cash flow on the field is good for every single person there?
]
] Put your frustration where it belongs. You need MORE HANGARS to *supply*
] the *demand*. Time to talk to the airport manager, the FBO, or the
] airport commission. And time to apologize to people who invest in the
] airport.
The hanger space is filled; they won't build any more hangers,
*period*. There's just no more room. Besides, hangers are for
airplanes, not for museum pieces or memoribilia.
I'm happy I have space for my Archer, but I know a number of folks who
have no where to store their aircraft, and they are frustrated by
other folks with decrepid piles of junk taking up hanger space.
Fortunately, there is activity underway to get rid of the junk; it
just takes time....
Lee Phillips
This may come as a surprise to you, but at our airport, we have to be self
supporting. We do get grants (if we provide matching funds) for airport
infrastructure (runways, taxiways, ramps, roads, fire stations, etc) but we
have to build hangars (and anything else that is revenue producing) at our
own expense. Consequently we have to be able to charge enough to make a
profit. Yes, a profit. And, we have to charge rates that the market will
bear. We have room for more hangars, and people that want to rent them.
However, not yet enough on a waiting list to justify the investment. We DO
allow individuals to lease land and build their own hangars. They have to be
real hangars, not just a glorified cardboard box for a homeless airplane,
though. So far, we have had only one taker, with other prospects in sight.
We have a few hangar queens, too. People pay the county property taxes on
them; they pay tie down fees, and property tax (this is the county's idea,
not ours) on the land or hangars they lease, as well.
One thing about the hangar queen owners: They DO put their money where their
mouth is, and they all pay on schedule. We would rather that they would fly,
so they would buy fuel, too, but most of them (as I noted in a previous
post) find themselves unable for one reason or another.
Lee
Kyler Laird <la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:874kag$9bu$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
Lee Phillips
Anyone who has a different point of view of different goals doesn't deserve
any consideration, according to such theories.
"F**k 'em, I got mine"
phooey.
Lee
John <jga...@ici.net> wrote in message
news:FJil4.1438$yY6....@news.goodnet.com...
>
> Kyler Laird wrote
> >
> >It's a shame that federally-funded airports don't have
> >an agreement to provide hangar space as needed (at a
> >reasonable price).
>
>
> in the same post Kyler Laird also wrote
> >
> >Being a capitalist, I also think of things like "The
> >hangar shortage could be solved overnight by raising
> >the rent appropriately."
>
John Clear
Jeff Cook <je...@cookstudios.com> wrote:
>Brad Benson wrote:
>> I just think you're taking up valuable hanger
>> space that could be used by people with real airplanes.
>
>that more cash flow on the field is good for every single person there?
Hangar rent is probably a small percentage of cash flow on a field.
Hangar queens don't buy fuel or other services.
>Put your frustration where it belongs. You need MORE HANGARS to *supply*
>the *demand*. Time to talk to the airport manager, the FBO, or the
>airport commission. And time to apologize to people who invest in the
>airport.
Many airports in this area (SF Bay Area) are space limited, and have
no room to build more hangars. Since there is a 10+ year waiting list
for hangars, I hope there aren't too many hangar queens inside. There
are plenty scattered around the tie-downs of the local airports. :(
John
--
John Clear - j...@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~jac
Scott Moore
> Many airports in this area (SF Bay Area) are space limited, and have
> no room to build more hangars. Since there is a 10+ year waiting list
> for hangars, I hope there aren't too many hangar queens inside. There
> are plenty scattered around the tie-downs of the local airports. :(
>
> John
While in the SF area, take a drive down 880 and look right going past
SJC.
Row after row of very empty aircraft shelters.
The "shortage" in SJ/SF is very artificially created. Of course, the
private interests want to carve the space into condos anyhow, so I suppose
on the ballance we are lucky.
Dave Katz
about to become runway overrun. 30R is going to be torn out and
rebuilt to carry transport aircraft (something like 11,000') and
then 30L will be extended to match.
Doesn't help the hangar situation any, but it's not exactly condos either.
Kyler Laird
>This may come as a surprise to you, but at our airport, we have to be self
>supporting. We do get grants (if we provide matching funds) for airport
>infrastructure (runways, taxiways, ramps, roads, fire stations, etc) but we
>have to build hangars (and anything else that is revenue producing) at our
>own expense.
"We" means "the airport owners" in this case, right?
>Consequently we have to be able to charge enough to make a
>profit. Yes, a profit.
Great! I'm all for it! I'd love for you to be so
profitable that you never consider turning your
wonderful airport into a self-storage facility (or
making it into a truck wash like our nearby 3AR).
>And, we have to charge rates that the market will
>bear.
You bet! Get whatever you think you can. We'll
squeel when it's too high and you'll see that
waiting list go *poof*.
>We have room for more hangars, and people that want to rent them.
>However, not yet enough on a waiting list to justify the investment.
Yeah, I suppose for T-hangars you'd need to have
a few on the list. It doesn't make sense to build
small T-hangars.
>We DO
>allow individuals to lease land and build their own hangars.
Fantastic! Problem solved.
>They have to be
>real hangars, not just a glorified cardboard box for a homeless airplane,
>though. So far, we have had only one taker, with other prospects in sight.
At least you're providing an option that
(potentially) works for everyone involved.
I wish you ran the airport here...
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>No, it is a simple case of Kyler getting HIS, and the hell with anyone else.
Wow. Just when you think the responses can't
get any wierder...
What is it that already having a hangar has
*anything* to do with what I said?
>Anyone who has a different point of view of different goals doesn't deserve
>any consideration, according to such theories.
You're going to need to explain that one to me.
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>This may come as a surprise to you, but at our airport, we have to be self
>supporting.
It bothered me that something I said would be
interpreted as meaning that I would be surprised
by this. I think I finally figured it out. (It
sure would be nice if people would learn to
better quote the material to which they respond.)
I wrote:
>> >>It's a shame that federally-funded airports don't have
>> >>an agreement to provide hangar space as needed (at a
>> >>reasonable price).
I should have elaborated a bit more. When I said
"space" I wasn't meaning that it had to be a
hangar that's already built. It would be fine
with me if the airport said "Hey, we don't have
funds/We don't think it's a good investment right
now to build hangars, but we'll lease you land on
which you can build a hangar."
When I was writing that, I was thinking of some
of the AOPA stories I've been reading about
airports taking federal money and then turning
around and screwing the GA people. One that
stuck in my head was an airport that (as I
recall) built facilities for commercial planes
and then made other parts of the airport into a
city park. They left the GA guys without any
(adequate) hangar space.
If you're going to take federal money, we
(federal taxpayers) are going to expect
something in return.
--kyler
Lee Phillips
forget who they are, and what they are supposed to be doing.
Yes, we are an airport district (essentially a public corporation, with the
board of directors [of which I am president] selected by popular election)
(IYK, as it happens).
At first, I thought I was hearing that somehow the government should provide
stuff for free. My mistake!
We are considering things like Truck Stops, RV park (to support the folks
that like to bring their gliders from afar). We need to make a buck, but we
want to support aviation first and last. We realize our airport has no
problems that 25 more active GA airplanes wouldn't solve. We are never going
to be (and can't be or wannabe) LAX or even SNA, so we have to do what we
can. We DO want to grow our airport for convenience, commerce, and
recreation. We have a vision that GA will do it for us. Private aircraft,
FedEx, UPS, ambulance, United Express and future hopes for charter. Come see
us at www.inyokernairport.com !!
Lee
Kyler Laird <la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:876omi$sul$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
Scott Moore
>
> Those empty aircraft shelters (along with the old terminal building) are
> about to become runway overrun. 30R is going to be torn out and
> rebuilt to carry transport aircraft (something like 11,000') and
> then 30L will be extended to match.
>
> Doesn't help the hangar situation any, but it's not exactly condos either.
>
SJC stopped taking applications for a tie down some time back. They have reapeatedly
claimed that they are not pushing GA off the field, while also repeatedly squeezing
it out. I even have sympathy for SJC, San Jose is getting big and needs a pure
carrier airport. On the other hand, being around SJC (where I got my licence)
for the past 10-20 years gave me the unique perspective of seeing what happens
when big money wants you and your kind gone.
Michael
> We DO
> allow individuals to lease land and build their own hangars. They have to
be
> real hangars, not just a glorified cardboard box for a homeless airplane,
> though. So far, we have had only one taker, with other prospects in sight.
So what sort of protection do you offer these people? Personally,
if I was going to invest the money to put up a hangar I'd want some
serious guarantee that it would remain usable as a hangar for the
foreseeable future. I suspect few people want to do it because they
don't own the land, and if the airport goes to condos they are
hosed. You ought to consider selling them the land. That way if
the place goes to condos, they can either cash in or be real
obstructionists...
Michael
Edward Zager
|> In article <3895F2E1...@cookstudios.com>,
|> Jeff Cook <je...@cookstudios.com> wrote:
|> >Brad Benson wrote:
|> >> I just think you're taking up valuable hanger
|> >> space that could be used by people with real airplanes.
|> >
|> >People who want to pay for resources ARE A GOOD THING. Can't you see
|> >that more cash flow on the field is good for every single person there?
|>
|> Hangar rent is probably a small percentage of cash flow on a field.
|> Hangar queens don't buy fuel or other services.
|>
|> >Put your frustration where it belongs. You need MORE HANGARS to *supply*
|> >the *demand*. Time to talk to the airport manager, the FBO, or the
|> >airport commission. And time to apologize to people who invest in the
|> >airport.
|>
|> no room to build more hangars. Since there is a 10+ year waiting list
|> for hangars, I hope there aren't too many hangar queens inside. There
|> are plenty scattered around the tie-downs of the local airports. :(
|>
Let's see,
Palo Alto (PAO) has room to build more hangars. There's nothing on the north
side of the tower/east side of the runway. I'm sure that the bird people
would kill off any new hangars just like they killed of the second runway.
Reid Hillview has room to build more hangars, if it doesn't get killed off
by the developers (um, I mean the local land owners and their politician. :-)
Moffet (NUQ) has a ton of room tu build more hangars (salivate) Which
won't ever happen because Sunnyvale and Mountain view don't want anything
Commercial or GA to ever fly into Moffet if they can prevent it.
San Jose (SJC) is getting tight on space just because of all the commercial
changes being done to the airport (longer runways, more parking) It's a
matter of time until GA gets pushed out of SJC anyway.
South county has a bunch of room. But, since it's in Santa Clara county,
it probably won't get to grow either.
That pretty well takes care of the South Bay.
So why aren't there more hangars?
It's the political climate. It has nothing to do with the space available.
If you don't like it, work to change the what the politicians think is
important. (like the many attempts to close RHV, illegally tax GA...)
I'm based in the SF Bay area. In the hangar next to me is a Cessna (looks like
a 172) that hasn't flown in the 5-6 years that I've been there. The cowling
is off the plane, and has never been put on. The spider webs across the bottom
of the hangar doors are also a good clue.
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
Edward Zager
|> Dave Katz wrote:
|> >
|> > Those empty aircraft shelters (along with the old terminal building) are
|> > about to become runway overrun. 30R is going to be torn out and
|> > rebuilt to carry transport aircraft (something like 11,000') and
|> > then 30L will be extended to match.
|> >
|> > Doesn't help the hangar situation any, but it's not exactly condos either.
|> >
|>
|> SJC stopped taking applications for a tie down some time back. They have reapeatedly
|> claimed that they are not pushing GA off the field, while also repeatedly squeezing
|> it out. I even have sympathy for SJC, San Jose is getting big and needs a pure
|> carrier airport. On the other hand, being around SJC (where I got my licence)
|> for the past 10-20 years gave me the unique perspective of seeing what happens
|> when big money wants you and your kind gone.
|>
If they would kick GA out of San Jose (SJC) to someplace like Moffet (NUQ)
I wouldn't mind. Trying to kick GA from SJC to Reid Hillview (RHV) and
all the attempts to close RHV is a perfect example of the policical
bullsh*t that occurs in the South bay.
Edward "why are politicians held in higher regard than used car salesmen?" Zager
Focke Wulf 149JZ
Dylan Smith
news:877ddi$g...@news.or.intel.com...
> I'm based in the SF Bay area. In the hangar next to me is a Cessna (looks
like
> a 172) that hasn't flown in the 5-6 years that I've been there. The
cowling
> is off the plane, and has never been put on. The spider webs across the
bottom
> of the hangar doors are also a good clue.
I believe my local airport takes a more pragmatic approach to hangar
queens - and they have to to keep going, really.
My local airport is a private, public use airport. It does not receive a
single cent of taxpayers money - indeed, it pays some $6000/month in
property taxes to League City. It makes *all* of its money from tie down,
hangar rent and fuel sales and renting a building out to the local shooting
school. In fact, they've been making a small profit off it which is good -
however, the margins aren't very big.
If a plane isn't flying (and therefore not buying fuel) but taking up
valuable hangar space, eventually that owner will get run off the field. A
flying plane is MUCH more valuable to the airport than one that's just
sitting. There's a two year waiting list for hangar space, but the airport
isn't rich enough to build more at the moment. Also, there is the continual
threat of property development in the area, so no-one seems willing to
invest in building new hangars. The hostility of League City towards
anything that's not new housing grants (LC is IMHO trying to keep itself in
the black by using non-sustainable methods - all they are interested in is
granting new housing permits for lots of money) doesn't help our situation
either.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
Flying: http://www.icct.net/~dyls/
FFE/FE2 Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Jeff Cook
> If a plane isn't flying (and therefore not buying fuel) but taking up
> valuable hangar space, eventually that owner will get run off the field.
Though I don't think anybody should be 'run off the field'. I would
think it appropriate to consider writing a minimum fuel purchase claus
into hangar leases that are in extraordinary demand...EXCEPT that I'd
fully expect it to become as oppressive and infruratingly obnoxious as
the $ignature FBOs I've had experience with. I'd immediately expect some
local bozo to decide that setting fuel minimums so high that
non-purchase penalty fees become more profitable.
Lee Phillips
get is a long term, renewable lease. We have taken A LOT of federal money in
the form of grants, so it will be at least 20 years after the last grant is
given before anyone talks of condos. Besides, we don't have that kind of
land pressure here in the desert, with land running $4000/acre.
You might be right - people seem to like fee simple arrangements. Of course,
the way to keep the airport an airport, is to NOT sell it off.
No taste for condos here at any level. Why have a condo when you can have 5
acres and a five bedroom house for less than $150k?
Lee
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:uEEl4.584$wR.1...@news.flash.net...
Scott Moore
I totally agree, unfortunately, you just picked the other one. The "decommissioning"
of Moffet was classic political bullshit at its best. Nasa, the main owner of the
field, gave the field over to other interests (I think private, don't quote me),
then promptly turned around and leased the property from them. The entire thing
was so that Nasa could claim they were cutting costs drastically by getting rid of
the place.
Scott Moore
to MAKE you purchase local fuel, just the kind of thing the AOPA was
formed to prevent. I minimum fly rule, maybe, but then enforcement becomes
horrible (can you PROVE you flew this year ?).
There are TONS of solutions far less draconian than fuel mins. Privatizing
much of the business strikes me as one way, private interests tend to
think that demand is good, not a problem. A funny example is at RHV here.
Right next to the airport, fenced off from the airport, is a "do it
yourself storage". We discussed also the ability to place your own
hangar on the field. Also, instead of continually pitting housing tract
builders against each other, the housing developments could arrange to
run taxiways to the airport, and vola ! Instant airpark and better
selling prices.
Edward Zager wrote:
>
> So how do they deal with someone like me. I rarely buy fuel at my home
> field because :
>
> a) It's much more expensive than many of the places in the central valley.
> b) They don't sell 80 octane avgas. (and I have an 80 octane engine).
>
> I can go get 80 octane (Avgas) in the central valley for about $0.35-
> $0.45/gallon than at my home field. I'm happier, and so is my engine.
Edward Zager
|> Edward Zager <eza...@td2cad.KiLLSPam.intel.com> wrote in message
|> news:877ddi$g...@news.or.intel.com...
|>
|> > I'm based in the SF Bay area. In the hangar next to me is a Cessna (looks
|> like
|> > a 172) that hasn't flown in the 5-6 years that I've been there. The
|> cowling
|> > is off the plane, and has never been put on. The spider webs across the
|> bottom
|> > of the hangar doors are also a good clue.
|>
|> I believe my local airport takes a more pragmatic approach to hangar
|> queens - and they have to to keep going, really.
|> My local airport is a private, public use airport. It does not receive a
|> single cent of taxpayers money - indeed, it pays some $6000/month in
|> property taxes to League City. It makes *all* of its money from tie down,
|> hangar rent and fuel sales and renting a building out to the local shooting
|> school. In fact, they've been making a small profit off it which is good -
|> however, the margins aren't very big.
|>
|> flying plane is MUCH more valuable to the airport than one that's just
|> sitting. There's a two year waiting list for hangar space, but the airport
|> isn't rich enough to build more at the moment. Also, there is the continual
|> threat of property development in the area, so no-one seems willing to
|> invest in building new hangars. The hostility of League City towards
|> anything that's not new housing grants (LC is IMHO trying to keep itself in
|> the black by using non-sustainable methods - all they are interested in is
|> granting new housing permits for lots of money) doesn't help our situation
|> either.
|>
Jerry Kurata
your problem. I have been at several airports and noticed that many hangars
are used as storage spaces. Where else can you rent a 30 X 30 space for
$200/mo.
John Clear <j...@panix.com> wrote in message news:875bph$288$1...@panix.com...
> In article <3895F2E1...@cookstudios.com>,
> Jeff Cook <je...@cookstudios.com> wrote:
> >Brad Benson wrote:
> >> I just think you're taking up valuable hanger
> >> space that could be used by people with real airplanes.
> >
> >People who want to pay for resources ARE A GOOD THING. Can't you see
> >that more cash flow on the field is good for every single person there?
>
> Hangar rent is probably a small percentage of cash flow on a field.
> Hangar queens don't buy fuel or other services.
>
> >Put your frustration where it belongs. You need MORE HANGARS to *supply*
> >the *demand*. Time to talk to the airport manager, the FBO, or the
> >airport commission. And time to apologize to people who invest in the
> >airport.
>
> Many airports in this area (SF Bay Area) are space limited, and have
> no room to build more hangars. Since there is a 10+ year waiting list
> for hangars, I hope there aren't too many hangar queens inside. There
> are plenty scattered around the tie-downs of the local airports. :(
>
agav...@my-deja.com
Ralph Coffman <ral...@innova.net> wrote:
> SO Duster
> how much and would you consider a trade for some land iin SC
No land wanted, I don't pay taxes on the plane in it's present
location.
Oh, I would accept land in a downtown metropolis.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jay Honeck
for storage.
Of course, the "queens" are nothing but junk, after the first few years of
inactivity. Until someone comes along to give them that TLC...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
Jerry Kurata <jer...@acrues.com> wrote in message
news:tuOl4.22040$Fb1.4...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Kyler Laird
>Of course, the "queens" are nothing but junk, after the first few years of
>inactivity. Until someone comes along to give them that TLC...
And we call those people "suckers"...
--kyler (sucker)
Jay Honeck
hours, and felt kinda bad about it at the time.
Now, from what I've learned, my choice was the better one, if the other
choice had been a pristine, low-time "hangar queen". At the time, given
the options, I would not have suspected that N33431 was the way to go. I
would have surely JUMPED at the chance to buy a lower-time bird.
Glad I was "smart" -- by accident!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Project Pilot Mentor
Warrior N33431
Kyler Laird <la...@pier.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:87rqjc$d2c$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
Kyler Laird
>Now, from what I've learned, my choice was the better one, if the other
>choice had been a pristine, low-time "hangar queen". At the time, given
>the options, I would not have suspected that N33431 was the way to go. I
>would have surely JUMPED at the chance to buy a lower-time bird.
We learned some things to check during a
prepurchase inspection of a plane that's
been sitting:
straw in wings
Should be under 20 pounds.
mice in fuselage
Should be fewer than 3 total
(alive and dead).
propellers
Should be connected to flywheel
with something resembling solid
metal.
--kyler
Jay Honeck
Wow, nice web page. Imagine, an airport with a "mission statement"!
By God, next thing you know, airports will actually use Marketing to build
business. Nice job -- I wish you were
running the Iowa City airport.
(Although your attack on Kyler's seemingly innocuous post STILL demands some
explanation, methinks...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Project Pilot Mentor
Warrior N33431
Lee Phillips <phil...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in message
news:876vq1$hac$1...@delphi.ridgenet.net...
Jay Honeck
(Sorry for the tardy response, but Mary and I were on a week's R&R in sunny
Florida)
Boy, I hear you when you talk about the stories our hangars could tell!
Iowa City Municipal is the oldest continually operated airport west of the
Mississippi. My hangar is probably 40 years old, maybe more, although it's
been upgraded along the way. (I.E.: New roof, new cement pad)
The previous occupant was an old gentleman who kept an immaculate Bellanca
in there. Being older, who needed (and installed) an aircraft winch to get
his plane into the hangar. Apparently he flew out of the airport for many
years, but eventually (inevitably?) lost his medical a few years back.
He kept the Bellanca as long as he could, hoping against all odds that he
might fly again one day. Eventually he sold the plane (it's still flying
locally -- it's beautiful), and I "inherited" his hangar.
When I moved in, I had to clean up all of his stuff, from cleansers to spare
parts accumulated over many years of occupancy. At first I was pissed at
having to do all the work, but it gradually grew into a labor of, well,
maybe NOT love, but fondness anyway, as I sorted through this can of "Wonder
Oil", or that package of window wipes.
Each item had it's own history, each scrap -- some many, many years old --
carried some value, some indescribable majesty that had made it worth
KEEPING, for reasons only apparent to the old man. I felt like I was
desecrating a grave, cleaning out his stuff.
When I finally got it all boxed up, I loaded my van and (after getting his
personal information from the airport manager) drove it over to his house.
I spoke at length with his wife, who thanked me for bringing it all "home"
to them -- her husband was too ill to come to the door.
I then asked her about his winch mounted in the hangar, which was probably
worth several hundred dollars, and looked brand new. She told me that "he
probably wouldn't be needing it anymore, but if he wanted it, she'd have him
call me."
He never called, of course.
Yes, our hangars have many tales to tell -- if only they could speak!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Project Pilot Mentor
Warrior N33431
Lynn Hall <lynnhall...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:ohRk4.1046$aZ4....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Jay,
> I am currently in a small hangar were a Cessna 140 sat for about four
years
> unused. The Cessna owner's and his wife used to fly all the time, being
> retired, every weekend they were off someplace. Well, sadly the wife
became
> too ill to fly and suffered for about four years until she passed away.
> They never did sell the plane, during this time, I think they hoped that
> some day she would be able to fly again, but she never did.
>
> After she passed away the plane was sold and their hangar came on the
> market, eventually I moved into it. I think the hangars have a few
stories
> to tell as well. Its really very sad. I think that sometimes these
planes
> are also owned by widows and they simply don't want to let go no matter
the
> cost. Planes become part of the family and its hard for people to let go
of
> their "loved ones".
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
> Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
> news:86umfn$fvb$1...@sword.avalon.net...
> > I have a question that has been bugging me for years, and this forum is
a
> > large enough cross-section of pilots to MAYBE get a statistically
> meaningful
> > response:
> >
> > WHY do people own "hangar queens"?
> >
> > There are approximately 200 planes based on our field. Of those 200,
> > probably 150 have not moved in the 3 years we've lived here -- even in
the
> > summer.
> >
> > Now, I'm sure SOME of those 150 have moved when I'm not around to
witness
> > it. But with the snow on the ground, it's pretty easy to discern
> activity.
> > Most of the hangars haven't been opened in a over a month.
> >
> > (Now, I know many pilots "hang it up" in the winter -- which makes me
> wonder
> > about their proficiency in the spring! -- but I'm talking about these
> planes
> > NEVER moving -- ever.)
> >
> > My family spends part of every day at the airport. We fly our Warrior
> every
> > couple of days, all year round. At first I wasn't willing to believe
this
> > inactivity, but I have checked with the line guys over an extended
period
> of
> > time to verify my numbers. These planes are simply in storage, for all
> > intents and purposes.
> >
> > WHY would someone tie up between $30K - $150K in a hangar queen, and
then
> > pay $125 - $200 per month for the privilege of doing so? And would YOU
> fly
> > a plane that is only run every other year? (Month?)
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Warrior N33431
> >
> >
>
>
Lee Phillips
I suspected that Kyler didn't like the derelicts because he wanted their
space. The derelict guys were there first, and are paying their bills. Why
does he concern himself with their business? Certainly, a flying airplane is
more valuable to an airport than a derelict. Airplanes with parts falling
off are dangerous even tied down. People get old, lose their medicals, buy
beyond their means, have dreams. Why should they conform to Kyler's vision
of what's good? Those folks, for the most part, are minding their own
business. Why should he not do the same?
Lee
Jay Honeck <hon...@avalon.net> wrote in message
news:87t9ea$n7a$1...@sword.avalon.net...
> Lee:
>
> Wow, nice web page. Imagine, an airport with a "mission statement"!
>
> By God, next thing you know, airports will actually use Marketing to build
> business. Nice job -- I wish you were
> running the Iowa City airport.
>
> (Although your attack on Kyler's seemingly innocuous post STILL demands
some
> explanation, methinks...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Project Pilot Mentor
> Warrior N33431
>
REMARKK
wonder the same thing, the club i;'m in has 47 members but only about 20 fly at
all. of those 20 about 15 really fly with any regularity. why would you pay 40
a mo. to say i'm in a flying club????? go figure???
jeff at 5g8, pa
Kyler Laird
>I suspected that Kyler didn't like the derelicts because he wanted their
>space.
Good grief! If you're going to misinterpret what I
said, at least have the guts to quote it.
>The derelict guys were there first, and are paying their bills. Why
>does he concern himself with their business?
Where on earth are you getting this crap? Does it
have any relationship to anything I wrote?
--kyler
Kyler Laird
>why would you pay 40
>a mo. to say i'm in a flying club????? go figure???
I don't pay that much, but I'm still a member of a
flying club that I rarely use. For me, it's a small
price to pay for insurance and convenience.
When I want to get current in a single, I take a
club plane. If my plane is down, I have some more
options.
$40 * 12 = $480/year. That's not a lot (in flying
terms, a couple tanks of fuel) to pay for backup.
I suspect that some pilots just like being part of
the club, too. Think of all those people who join
Rotary. They don't even *have* planes!
--kyler
Jay Honeck
I'm glad to hear about your marketing options. It's refreshing.
As often as marketing/sales efforts are the brunt of jokes, (I.E.: Dilbert
comes to mind) they are still necessary "evils" in the business world.
Airports, as business enterprises, on the whole seem to have missed this
point, usually being run by pilots or (worse, sorry to say) mechanics who,
almost by definition, are underpaid, over-worked, and don't have the time or
aptitude to put together a comprehensive sales and marketing plan.
Stranger yet are the ones who DO have the time, but look down on these
efforts as being somehow beneath them. In my experience, these are the FBOs
that are run by guys who pull double-duty as charter pilots. For some
reason, they think it violates the sanctity of aviation to "sell" it to the
public.
Of course, this attitude dooms them to failure in the long run, as the days
of the "kids looking over the fence longingly" are apparently over. Kids
have far too many activities and interest nowadays to "waste" time trying to
get into an unfriendly, fenced-in airport. You've got to sell them on the
benefits, or they will take their money elsewhere.
Even simple, inexpensive things are often overlooked. How much does an ad
in your local shopper cost? Six bucks? Our FBO NEVER advertises. How
much does it really cost to host an EAA chapter meeting? Our FBO has no
interest in participating.
How hard is it to post flyers around the campus, offering flight lessons?
(Iowa City is home to the University of Iowa, with 25,000 rich kids, many
with seemingly unlimited funds) I can think of a million ways to make our
FBO more profitable, and they do NONE of them.
Until airport managers become businessmen, they will continue to fail.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Project Pilot Mentor
Warrior N33431
Lee Phillips <phil...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in message
news:87temb$i4m$1...@delphi.ridgenet.net...
> We are building a marketing plan as we converse. We want to be survivors.
>
> I suspected that Kyler didn't like the derelicts because he wanted their
Scott Moore
> Of course, this attitude dooms them to failure in the long run, as the days
> of the "kids looking over the fence longingly" are apparently over. Kids
> have far too many activities and interest nowadays to "waste" time trying to
> get into an unfriendly, fenced-in airport. You've got to sell them on the
> benefits, or they will take their money elsewhere.
Our airport (RHV) has a quiet access road that goes right by the prevailing
takeoff point. They even arranged to transmit the tower frequency by FM
radio, and post that on a sign overlooking the road.
Not suprisingly, there is a standing audience of cars watching takeoffs.
It would be interesting to find out how many of those licence plates show
up parked at one of the many flight training outfits, but I guess we will
never know.
HLAviation
>up parked at one of the many flight training outfits, but I guess we will
>never know.
Hmmm... Most airports have a cop pilot or two, get the plates, run em and send
out "Intro Flight" coupons to the people who park there, might be all they need
to get em started.
Timothy M. Metzinger
>Our airport (RHV) has a quiet access road that goes right by the prevailing
>takeoff point. They even arranged to transmit the tower frequency by FM
>radio, and post that on a sign overlooking the road.
>Not suprisingly, there is a standing audience of cars watching takeoffs.
>It would be interesting to find out how many of those licence plates show
>up parked at one of the many flight training outfits, but I guess we will
>never know.
I'll say this for RHV, even during the cloudy week I was there in RHV, the FBOs
had people coming and going all day long, there were people parked on the
access road, and the airport looked busy even though there wasn't a lot of
flying going on.
Of course, it helps that RHV is easy to find, and isn't out in the middle of
nowhere.
clear skies
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
DOD # 1854 '82 Virago 750 - "Siobhan"
Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK
Jay Honeck
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Project Pilot Mentor
Warrior N33431
Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:38A2F59C...@cisco.com...
Jeff Cook
> What a GREAT idea!!! How did they arrange the FM transmissions?
You may get a lot of help in the rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroups as well.
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
DCPILOTS-L Mailing List Administrator
General Aviation in the Washington, DC region
http://www.cookstudios.com/dcpilots
Tina Marie
Timothy M. Metzinger <tmetz...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>had people coming and going all day long, there were people parked on the
>access road, and the airport looked busy even though there wasn't a lot of
>flying going on.
Weiser is like that. They have a few benches where people can sit, and
I'm rarely there when there aren't a bunch of locals sitting around
watching planes takeoff and land (usually with kids).
I'm down at LaPorte now, and I've yet to see a local. It's much
more intimidating - big fence all around the field, you can't really
see the runway from outside the fence, and people don't seem to come in.
I miss them.
It always strikes me as really sad when I go to Hobby and see families
sitting outside the fence (sometimes with picnic lunches!), far from
the runway, where they can barely see the airliners landing. I
always want to stop and give them directions to a "real" airport, where
they can hang out, talk to the pilots, maybe get a ride...
Tina Marie
--
skydiver - PP-ASEL - N860SG \*\ An apostrophe does not mean, "Yikes!
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina \*\ Here comes an 's'!" - Dave Barry