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

[TripFarmer]

When federal dollars are involved at an airport (BHM) can an FBO do practices
like this to discriminate against GA? There are no other t-hangers at the
airport other tan the ones this FBO (Mercury Air) has.

As a business person I would think they can do what they want to do, but
wondering if there's something that can be done to stop this practice. The GM
has made it clear that he doesn't want GA at his FBO.

Thanks in advance.


Trip

[Mike Rapoport]

Why is doubling the rent discriminitory?

Mike
MU-2


"TripFarmer" > wrote in message
...
> When federal dollars are involved at an airport (BHM) can an FBO do
practices
> like this to discriminate against GA? There are no other t-hangers at the
> airport other tan the ones this FBO (Mercury Air) has.
>
> As a business person I would think they can do what they want to do, but
> wondering if there's something that can be done to stop this practice.
The GM
> has made it clear that he doesn't want GA at his FBO.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Trip
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

TripFarmer wrote:
>
> When federal dollars are involved at an airport (BHM) can an FBO do practices
> like this to discriminate against GA? There are no other t-hangers at the
> airport other tan the ones this FBO (Mercury Air) has.

Well, it's been my experience that only GA aircraft are small enough to
fit in the typical T-hangar. If they're pricing things high to run off GA,
then those T-hangars are sitting empty. Somehow, I don't believe this is
what's happening.

If there are planes in those hangars, the FBO is simply pricing the hangars
commensurate with the market. No discrimination, no problem.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Mike Rapoport]

Hangers (like anything else) should rent at market rates. I would be
perfectly OK if a FBO provided a free hanger to someone who bought enough
fuel. Don't get me wrong, I dont like my costs going up more than anybody
else but they own the hangers and have the right to operate their investment
as they see fit.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RzUYa.99518$uu5.14424@sccrnsc04...
> > Why is doubling the rent discriminitory?
>
> Depends. Did the FBO also double the jet-hangar rent?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 8-Aug-2003, "Mike Rapoport" > 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.

-Elliott Drucker

[C J Campbell]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
| This may be a VERY unpopular opinion, but if you take the business and
| economy point of view.. if you have a waiting list, you arent charging
| enough. Plain and simple. Supply versus demand.
|

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. But what
do I know? I only have twenty years of experience developing, building,
syndicating, owning and managing commercial and multi-family residential
real estate. Frankly, the way most airports are managed, they deserve to
fall prey to developers. The way some aviation people talk, you would think
that they were socialists who believe that airports are an entitlement
required to subsidize the poor.

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.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> 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?


> They would be profitable

why is profitability assured?


>, and more hangars and office
> space
> would be built,

I'd love to see you try to survive a meeting where you propose
this to the anti-airport NIMBY goons around KBED.

>lowering prices over all until an equilibrium was
> reached.

lower prices? really?

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Thompson]

By regulation. The question is, is hangar supply at a particular airport
more like a municipal utility (water, garbage collection) or more like a
free market commodity?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "C J Campbell"
> > 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?
>
>
> > They would be profitable
>
> why is profitability assured?
>
>
> >, and more hangars and office
> > space
> > would be built,
>
> I'd love to see you try to survive a meeting where you propose
> this to the anti-airport NIMBY goons around KBED.
>
> >lowering prices over all until an equilibrium was
> > reached.
>
> lower prices? really?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Dan Luke]

> 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.

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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ray Andraka]

Neither. A free market commodity would permit others to build hangars so that
it was not a monopoly. A municipal utility would not be restricted in its
availability, and the users have at least indirect control of the rates
through their local government. The problem with hangars, at least in this
neck of the woods, is that the supply is artificially restricted to the point
that there are decade long waiting lists for hangars with exorbitant rents.
The only alternative is tying down outside, which with New England winters is
very tough on airplanes.


Dan Thompson wrote:

> By regulation. The question is, is hangar supply at a particular airport
> more like a municipal utility (water, garbage collection) or more like a
> free market commodity?

--
--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

[Dan Luke]

"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

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. ..
> By regulation. The question is, is hangar supply at a particular airport
> more like a municipal utility (water, garbage collection) or more like a
> free market commodity?
>

As part of the transportation infrastructure it is different from either,
although I would think closer to a municipal utility.

The government doesn't know how to deal with Amtrak, either.

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> > 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?

[Tom S.]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like the situation across southern New England. In Rhode Island,
all the
> airports are administered by RIAC, who contracted services to Hawthorne.
No new
> hangers, and only enough hangers in the state to hold a couple dozen
airplanes.

Sounds like a few places I've seen, and most notably, the state or city
aircraft have first dibs on hanger space.

[Mike Rapoport]

It is not gouging. If person A is willing to pay $300/mo and person B is
willing to pay $800/mo then person B should get the hanger, period. Any
other scheme is just a subsidy by the hanger owner to the renter. The
market allocates resources more efficiently than any other method. It is
not perfect but it is better than any other.

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
>
> On 8-Aug-2003, "Mike Rapoport" > 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.
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[Mike Rapoport]

Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

Mike
MU-2


"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. ..
> By regulation. The question is, is hangar supply at a particular airport
> more like a municipal utility (water, garbage collection) or more like a
> free market commodity?
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "C J Campbell"
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > > They would be profitable
> >
> > why is profitability assured?
> >
> >
> > >, and more hangars and office
> > > space
> > > would be built,
> >
> > I'd love to see you try to survive a meeting where you propose
> > this to the anti-airport NIMBY goons around KBED.
> >
> > >lowering prices over all until an equilibrium was
> > > reached.
> >
> > lower prices? really?
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
> It is not gouging. If person A is willing to pay $300/mo and person B is
> willing to pay $800/mo then person B should get the hanger, period. Any
> other scheme is just a subsidy by the hanger owner to the renter. The
> market allocates resources more efficiently than any other method. It is
> not perfect but it is better than any other.
>

Quite! The only "imperfection" is one party "going off half-cocked" (i.e.,
ignorant/naive) but it's also foolhardy to subsidize various forms of
stupidity.

[Bob Noel]

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).

> > > They would be profitable
> >
> > why is profitability assured?
>
> Because hangers won't be built unless the rents justify the cost.

that won't assure profitability.

> > >, and more hangars and office space would be built,
> >
> > I'd love to see you try to survive a meeting where you propose
> > this to the anti-airport NIMBY goons around KBED.
>
> This certainly restricts supply and leads to higher prices but that is
> just a fact of life.

that's a cop-out

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

> Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.

no it isn't.

--
Bob Noel

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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).

But virtually every "good" is restricted in supply to some degree. The
rental costs for hangars resembles the way rental costs for apartments
works; both have limits imposed by limited availability of space *where it
is most desired*. There are plenty of vacant and inexpensive apartments and
also hangars, just not where they are most desired. Rental costs will
always be higher in desireable locations. Location, location, location.
Any time there have been rent controls it has resulted in problems. It's a
nice short term gain for the renter but bad for the landlord and bad for
everyone in the long term as there is no capital for capital improvements.
Remember the rent controls in Cambridge? How about in New York City that
had landlords abandoning buildings by the dozens? Has rent control ever had
good results for an area?

Peter

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> > Hanger supply is exactly like real estate supply.
>
> no it isn't.

Why not?

[Ray Andraka]

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

[Bob Noel]

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

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Mike Rapoport]

"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

[Peter Gottlieb]

"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

[Bob Noel]

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

[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

[Dan Luke]

"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

[Dan Luke]

"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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

Gee, must be why they're building a 500 unit apartment complex off the
departure end of RWY 36... :(

Of course, the battle for that runway has already been lost.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

I agree that it not a completly free market. To be completely free there
need to be an infinate number of buyers and sellers.. However the supply is
clearly limited (based on what the community wants) and the price should be
left to market dynamics IMHO.

Personally I would suggest to anyone living in MA that they move if flying
is an important part of their life.

Mike
MU-2


"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> 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]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
| "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.
| --

The giant flying vampire toad (actually a species of frog -- and the only
toothed frog at that) preys only on golfers. It weighs about 20 pounds and
hides in trees, waiting for golfers to pass underneath. Then it glides down
on a slimy, leathery membrane stretched between its legs, fastens its two,
hollow teeth into the golfer's neck, and sucks his blood. Golfers have
started avoiding golf courses where this toad lives, so the Federal
government declared the toad an endangered species and ordered Florida to
select golfers at random in order to feed the vampires. Florida sued, and
the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Endangered Species Act was not
intended to protect species that deserved to be extinct. Last I heard, the
Supreme Court had ordered that the case be re-heard in another Circuit where
the judges did not play golf in Florida.

[Ray Andraka]

Unfortunately, my wife is at least as important part of my life as is flying, so
moving out of the Northeast is not an option (besides, the location needed for
my line of work, high tech electronics, also dictates locating in an area that
is just as restrictive. The infamous Reid-Hillview thing comes to mind). My
complaint is that hangars in this neck of the woods are difficult to obtain at
any price, and hangar rents for an unheated group hangar if you can get in one
are rivaling apartment rents. Several of the airports here have ample land to
erect hangars (Quonset Point, Providence), but the state is not permitting it.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I agree that it not a completly free market. To be completely free there
> need to be an infinate number of buyers and sellers.. However the supply is
> clearly limited (based on what the community wants) and the price should be
> left to market dynamics IMHO.
>
> Personally I would suggest to anyone living in MA that they move if flying
> is an important part of their life.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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

--
--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

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

[snip]
> Now let's say that the price for a hangar went to $5000 per month and
> MassPort got this money instead of going through some FBO with MassPort
> getting some predetermined fixed amount. The way politics loves money, I
> would bet there would be some pressure to build more hangars then.

You'd lose. At KBED, Massport already gets the money from the T-hangars.
Do you see any new T-hangars at KBED?

[snip]

> Both hangar space and housing are subsets of real estate in general.
> Sure
> there are some differences, just as commercial real estate is slightly
> different from residential real estate, but overall many of the same
> factors
> come into play like limited land availability, location, opposition, land
> use questions, etc. That's all I am trying to say.

and I was responding to the original claim that they are "exactly"
the same. Sure, there are similar factors. So it would appear that
we pretty much agree. I was going to reply more point by point until
reading your last paragraph (but I did feel compelled to point out that
Massport gets the T-hangar rents already).

--
Bob Noel

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
> I agree that it not a completly free market. To be completely free there
> need to be an infinate number of buyers and sellers.

That is NOT what defines a "Free Market". A free market is defined as the
parties have full freedom to contract/trade for goods and services. It has
nothing to do with the number of participants (only two or more per
transaction) or the limits of the knowledge or intelligence...only that the
trade is entered into freely and willingly.

> However the supply is
> clearly limited (based on what the community wants)

That's a form of socialism.

> and the price should be
> left to market dynamics IMHO.

That's a "market" system, but not necessarily a "free market".

> Personally I would suggest to anyone living in MA that they move if flying
> is an important part of their life.

I would suggest moving from MA in ANY case. :~)

>
> Mike
> MU-2

Tom

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I agree that it not a completly free market. To be completely free
there
> > need to be an infinate number of buyers and sellers.
>
> That is NOT what defines a "Free Market". A free market is defined as the
> parties have full freedom to contract/trade for goods and services. It has
> nothing to do with the number of participants (only two or more per
> transaction) or the limits of the knowledge or intelligence...only that
the
> trade is entered into freely and willingly.


Yes, that is one of the characteristics of a perfect free market. There
needs to be enough buyers and sellers so that no one individual buyer of
seller can influance the market.


> > However the supply is
> > clearly limited (based on what the community wants)
>
> That's a form of socialism.
>

Actually it is democracy..


> > and the price should be
> > left to market dynamics IMHO.
>
> That's a "market" system, but not necessarily a "free market".
>

True

> > Personally I would suggest to anyone living in MA that they move if
flying
> > is an important part of their life.
>
> I would suggest moving from MA in ANY case. :~)
>

The striped bass fishing can be pretty good.


> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
> Tom
>
>
Mike
MU-2

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I agree that it not a completly free market. To be completely free
> there
> > > need to be an infinate number of buyers and sellers.
> >
> > That is NOT what defines a "Free Market". A free market is defined as
the
> > parties have full freedom to contract/trade for goods and services. It
has
> > nothing to do with the number of participants (only two or more per
> > transaction) or the limits of the knowledge or intelligence...only that
> the
> > trade is entered into freely and willingly.
>
>
> Yes, that is one of the characteristics of a perfect free market. There
> needs to be enough buyers and sellers so that no one individual buyer of
> seller can influance the market.

Nope (again). First, it doesn't matter if there's a million buyers or none.
Second, it doesn't matter how many SELLERS there are. If there's NO buyers,
it's the market saying "Your price/product sucks", and if there's one seller
(other than for a patented item) there can be noe barrier to entry for
competitors.

I don't know where these notions of a "free market" come from, but I suspect
it's the public schools/academia.

>
>
> > > However the supply is
> > > clearly limited (based on what the community wants)
> >
> > That's a form of socialism.
> >
>
> Actually it is democracy.

And a democracy (which we're not) can very well be socialistic.

>
>
> > > and the price should be
> > > left to market dynamics IMHO.
> >
> > That's a "market" system, but not necessarily a "free market".
> >
>
> True
>
> > > Personally I would suggest to anyone living in MA that they move if
> flying
> > > is an important part of their life.
> >
> > I would suggest moving from MA in ANY case. :~)
> >
>
> The striped bass fishing can be pretty good.

No monopoly there.

> Mike
> MU-2