Written by 
Aerodyne Aviation, a Renton pioneering firm in aviation development and the one-time home of airport namesake Clayton Scott, is being pushed from Renton Airport over a rent dispute. This new sign was going to be placed on their building, but it was never installed due to the disagreement.
In a recent blog post I described Renton Airport Management’s false “runway safety” explanation for pushing out Aerodyne Aviation, one of Renton’s oldest aviation research, design and maintenance centers. Today I’m describing Airport leadership’s similarly misleading messaging about the future of the Aerodyne Hangar. Airport property belongs to Renton taxpayers, and the public deserves an honest accounting of how it is being used to benefit our city.
Renton’s Airport management has declared Aerodyne’s Hangar so valuable that they want Aerodyne to pay more than three times the rent that Aerodyne paid for just their land lease last year. They say the Hangar and office complex, built by Aerodyne under their previous lease, has more than tripled the value of the property. But at the same time, paradoxically, the same Airport Management says it wants to tear down the hangar, suggesting it has no value.
These airport leaders also deliver conflicting timelines about their plans for this important publically-owned property. Renton’s Public Works Director Martin Pastucha and Airport Manager Manny Cruz wrote in their lease termination to Aerodyne that the hangar will be demolished “within the next few years.” Less than two months later, Renton’s Public Works Director Martin Pastucha emailed one of Aerodyne’s sub-tenants stating that the hangar will be demolished in 2036. (Does Renton’s Public Works Director really consider a whole decade just “a few years”?)
In this excerpt from the May 28, 2026 lease termination letter to Aerodyne, Airport Management says the hangar will be redeveloped “within the next few years”
In this July 2026 email to an Aerodyne subtenant, Martin Pastucha says the hangar will be demolished in 2036, ten years from now. (The statement about runway safety is false)
As Renton Airport leaders give false reasons for wanting to demolish a valuable hangar and dramatically conflicting timelines for it’s demolition, Aerodyne’s storied 61-year-old aerospace business is in the process of leaving Renton. Their hangar and office facility will soon become the latest abandoned building at Renton Airport, underutilized for the next ten years, as Renton airport leaders continue to intentionally eject aerospace experience, jobs and tax money.
Aerodyne partners and sub-tenants are asking for alternative tie-down and office space but are being told there is no space. They’ve been told by airport management that it’s easier to leave the Aerodyne building empty rather than rent it to several sub tenants, even though the number of airport management staff has nearly doubled in the last ten years. This has fueled speculation that Airport leaders might be covertly planning to replace Aerodyne’s think-tank of pilots, engineers, scientists, airplane-builders, and start-up investors with more business jet parking. Such a dramatic and arbitrary change in use is contrary to the Renton Airport Sustainability Plan that was meticulously developed by the Renton Airport Advisory Committee and the City Council in 2012. More business jet parking in Renton would also bring more night-time sleep disturbances.
Formerly full of distinct vintage, modern and experimental aircraft, Aerodyne’s hangar has now been nearly emptied (so that the building can sit empty for up to a decade)
As the world-wide birthplace of commercial jet aviation, Renton should be striving to keep our talent and reputation for aerospace leadership. We should not be sending aerospace excellence out the door, seemingly because our current Public Works Director (who has never lived in King County and spent most of his career in Southern California) seeks to simplify his job.
As longtime businesses like Aerodyne, Rainier Flight Services and the Landing Gear Works get pushed off of Renton Airport, Airport Management shifts the cost burden of running the airport (and maintaining their growing staff) to the businesses that remain. At least one of these businesses has said they’re being asked to sign on to a 120 percent increase in their rent as the Airport tries to avoid running out of money with fewer businesses. These hyper-increases in rent, combined with a dramatic increase in the Business and Occupations maximum tax cap, work against Renton’s interests in keeping the Boeing Company at our airport long-term.
Arodyne’s office lobby, as aerospace tenants and subtenants move out.
Renton City Council should insist that Renton’s Airport leaders provide accurate reports on the current status of the Aerodyne hangar, details on their specific lease negotiations with Aerodyne, and their long-term plans and schedule for the property. Renton Council members are ultimately responsible for this and other airport leases, and they need to work with hard facts– not double-talk, random schedules, and fake statements about runway safety. And the Council should share these facts with the public. Even if detailed lease discussions happen behind the scenes, the displacement of a long-time tenant over a rent increase deserves Council attention, and the Council is only allowed to take action in a public meeting.
Renton’s previous Public Works Director was a licensed professional engineer, who could be relied on to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Renton City Council, tenants, and the public. Our current Public Works Director should try to emulate his predecessor instead of spinning the truth any way he likes.
Aerodyne’s hangar in 2019
And if you say anything about this bozo of a manager, the city will tell you he’s a genius.
This is a crazy way to run an airport. It doesn’t make sense. There’s been a waiting list to get on the Renton Airport for decades.
Why kick out good, locally owned, long-time businesses? Then, leave the buildings empty. What???
Renton’s Public Works Administrator did terrible damage to 2 previous airports he managed—Pasadena and Santa Monica airports, similar to our Renton Airport in many ways. He was forced out of those cities! (Randy can link to his previous blogs which details his past).
What’s the plan, since the Administration is ignoring previously Council-adopted plans—Airport Layout Plan, Sustainability Plan, Business Plan. RAAC worked tirelessly over many months and even years, to set good management for our airport, for decades to come, with those plans.
This city, and airport, are being run like the mafia.
Council Members, please start paying attention.
A statement from the Transportation/Aviation Committee Chair would be very appreciated, and appropriate.
Marcie Palmer
Business jet parking and night traffic will only impact those folks who live in the area surrounding the airport. It would be nice to sit on my deck and have a nice quiet evening but that wont happen. Maybe I should go lounge with a council member. This is one of those times when I think districts would be good for city council.
North and South DRT votes for crazy people. They’re getting what they voted for.
Cold. But true.
If the hangar is not going to be torn down, why are tenants being forced to vacate? Several other tenants on the airport have been permitted to stay on a month to month basis after their ground lease expired–albeit paying ground + hangar rent, which is appropriate. Or why, not put out the hangar for RFP to lease on a short term basis?
We tried and tried to stay at Aerodyne. Even talked to the Mayor. Falls on deaf ears. Airport Management really doesn’t care.
Like all the tiedowns and hangers the airport manages, they say they aren’t in the leasing of space in or around Aerodyne. Wouldn’t that be the same as leasing tiedowns (and a lot of tiedowns have been vacant for months)? Don’t they care about revenue? Do they just rely on grants?
You are right anonymous. They should care about revenue. The airport salary payroll has increased by 69% from 2022 to 2026. Personnel benefit payments have increased 82% over these four years. The airport has more staff than ever, and they have more technology than ever before. The airport leadership has no excuse for not being able to do the work of leasing all the property available for tiedowns and handling month-to-month leases on the hangars. Past airport managers have done this successfully with half the number of workers, while properly maintaining the buildings as well. I suspect the staff at the airport would be willing to do it, but they are being held back by poor executive management.
Am I correct? Aerodyne built the building and now the airport gets it for free?
Yes, Aerodyne built the hangar and attached offices with their money. They were renting the property that the building is on for market rate, which was about $8000 per month last year. Since they paid for the construction and maintenance of the building, the airport did not charge for it during the first forty years of the lease. After the lease runs out, the improvements (the hangar and office building) revert to city property. Ideally, at this point the tenant would get another long-term lease on the property, with a land-lease and a building lease that gives them a break in exchange for a commitment to make major upgrades and renewals to the building. Instead, I’ve been told that airport management asked Aerodyne to accept a short-term lease (a year or two) in which Aerodyne pays full market value for the building (about $28,000 per month) AND Aerodyne has to still make upgrades, perform all maintenance, and pay for all necessary unforseen major repairs on a building, even though the city now owns it.
I’ve heard that Aerodyne tried to negotiate fair long-term lease terms, or month-to-month terms in which the airport assumed maintenance responsibility, but Airport Management would not budge from their entrenched position. Airport Management apparently insisted on a short-term lease in which Aerodyne would make upgrades and perform all maintenance. While I was not in the lease discussions, if the account I heard is correct than it likely violates Renton’s airport leasing policy and FAA guidance; tenants should be given a long enough lease to amortize (get fair value from) any major improvements they are required to make to a building. I’m inclined to believe that this is what happened, because I have seen written documentation that shows that the same thing happened to The Landing Gear Works and to Rainier Flight Services (both were asked to do major repairs and upgrades on short-term leases).
If anything in this accounting of events is not correct, then Airport Management only has themselves to blame for the misunderstanding. Leasing of property is a Council responsibility, and final terms should be public and finalized in open public meetings. Quietly pushing out a long-term airport tenant by secretly presenting them with unacceptable terms should not be allowed.
At what point does the FAA take a look at what’s going on at the Renton Airport? In the past, the FAA was very protective of airport property being used for active aviation purposes. I’ve heard some tenants have filed complaints to the FAA, but so far nothing has come from those. And is it true Renton Airport now is more expensive than Boeing Field? That’s crazy.
Marcie Palmer
Good question Marcie. As you know our current Public Works Director, Martin Pastucha, was overseeing the Santa Monica Airport about ten years ago and generating many similar concerns. For instance here is an article where he attempts to defend high landing fees that he imposed, which served to drive out flight schools at the airport. https://generalaviationnews.com/2013/06/04/landing-fees-increased-at-santa-monica-airport/
Mr. Pastucha’s leadership team also issued short-term leases that tenants claimed were unfair.
Ultimately, tenants banded together and hired representatives who made an appeal to the FAA regarding four major issues that they said were unfair airport management practices. Their work ultimately resulted in the FAA finding that Santa Monica violated rules. Unfortunately it took years of FAA and court filings, and many thousands of dollars, to get to this finding. Santa Monica taxpayers also paid a lot of money for legal work as Martin Pastucha and his staff tried unsuccessfully to defend their practices. Here is an article about the FAA decision: https://avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-santa-monica-airport-violated-grant-assurances/
Renton Council could save everyone a lot of time and money by reading these decisions, and stepping in to assure Airport Management is following fair policies.
Below I’ve attached the conclusion from the FAA’s findings against Santa Monica’s airport management policies under Martin Pastucha, our current Public Works Director. FAA’s complete decision can be found here.
Hey Randy, long time admirer of your airport posts, thank you for continuing to shed light on the ongoing issues with Renton Airport management. To add to your list of their unreasonable and opaque practices, look no further than their absolute prohibition on standard aircraft tie-down storage boxes.
As you may know, tenants rely on these lockboxes to securely store basic aviation necessities right at their rented tie-down—things like tools, oil, and aircraft cleaning supplies. Management’s official excuse for banning them? They claim “animals might get in” or “fluids might leak.”
Let’s call these excuses exactly what they are: complete nonsense. Every single local airport in the surrounding area allows these storage boxes without issue. Are we expected to believe that Renton’s local wildlife is uniquely capable of breaking into secured metal heavy duty lockboxes, or that Renton pilots are somehow uniquely incapable of storing a quart of oil properly compared to pilots at Boeing Field, Paine Field, or Auburn?
It’s just another arbitrary, hostile hurdle disguised as a “safety” or “environmental” concern. It perfectly highlights the exact pattern you’ve been writing about: management inventing flimsy, bad-faith justifications to enact policies that are completely out of touch with standard aviation practices.
Additionally they won’t even allow you to dispose of a used and empty oil bottle in a airport trash can! It is absurd. I’d love to speak to you directly regarding this issue and more relating to the airport management. Do you have an email I can contact you with?