- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Seems like 100LL should have come down with the recent price drop on auto fuel.
Why hasn't AV fuel fallen w/ auto fuel?
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
Not to cause trouble, but the diesel is being exported, and there isn't as much competition for AV gas to drive the price down, nor as much consumption (& therefore turnover), it'll come down eventually. I wouldn't bet on diesel ever getting below $3.
Diesel came down a lot in my area. Paying $3.19 at Sam's Club, $3.29-3.39 at most other stations. 87 octane gas is down to about $2.80 around here.
it does seem odd that it has not fallen much. btw, Lord bless my state of low taxes! $2.49 for 87 octane here
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
There should be a limit or ban on diesel exports, it is a key cost element in our commerce because products move by truck and rail, so by driving the price up via exports it works against broad benefit to the economy and benefits only a small portion, i.e. oil co's. This is not a rant against oil co's, I know they need profit and I want them to make lots of it, but it seems like driving the price up by exporting to keep the domestic supply low is counter-intuitive to growing the broader economy of the nation.
Avgas is a very low volume product and prices are often kept high by operators who would rather see corporate turbine equipment than a 172. It's not as though every GA airport has two or three FBOs competing for your fuel purchase while in the areas most of us drive through most of the time, you can't throw a rock without hitting a gas station.
Too bad for the future of GA, although there are a number of lower performance piston singles that can legally be run on the same gas you put in your car.
You can bet that's what all the farmers with small singles based on their own land were doing back in the day and long before any mogas STCs existed.
Too bad for the future of GA, although there are a number of lower performance piston singles that can legally be run on the same gas you put in your car.
You can bet that's what all the farmers with small singles based on their own land were doing back in the day and long before any mogas STCs existed.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
I'm afraid you're right, and probably whenever the new no-lead piston Av fuel replaces 100LL the situation won't be a whole lot different.
The price has fallen at a few municipal (no profit) airports and some self serve locations.
However, the greedy FBO's are maintaining absurd prices. Avgas is not a large volume product and the FBO's really don't care about light aircraft.
There is much more to this story, as the major FBO chains are buying up the little guys on a daily basis. Locally, Atlantic's purchase of a mom-n-pop FBO raised the price from the mid $5 range to over $9.
Worse than that, federally funded airports, without landing fees/ramp fees have been taken over by FBO/municipality relationships that are contrary to federal law. Just to PARK on a federally funded ramp may cost $40. That's extortion and illegal. Teterboro, for example charges an enormous landing fee, which does not go towards airport improvements. It goes to local mobsters. The FAA is now coming down on such extortion.
However, the greedy FBO's are maintaining absurd prices. Avgas is not a large volume product and the FBO's really don't care about light aircraft.
There is much more to this story, as the major FBO chains are buying up the little guys on a daily basis. Locally, Atlantic's purchase of a mom-n-pop FBO raised the price from the mid $5 range to over $9.
Worse than that, federally funded airports, without landing fees/ramp fees have been taken over by FBO/municipality relationships that are contrary to federal law. Just to PARK on a federally funded ramp may cost $40. That's extortion and illegal. Teterboro, for example charges an enormous landing fee, which does not go towards airport improvements. It goes to local mobsters. The FAA is now coming down on such extortion.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Didn't a GA guy recently get appointed to head the FAA? I found that to be good (if not a little surprising) news, or maybe I'm mixing up who got appointed where lately.
Glad to hear the FAA is beginning to regulate in a way that cost benefits GA operators.
The trend you mention of large conglomerate FBO franchises buying up independents and jacking prices is only going to continue to squeeze GA unless and until the FAA wakes up and investigates it as what it is... price fixing.
Glad to hear the FAA is beginning to regulate in a way that cost benefits GA operators.
The trend you mention of large conglomerate FBO franchises buying up independents and jacking prices is only going to continue to squeeze GA unless and until the FAA wakes up and investigates it as what it is... price fixing.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
The trend you mention of large conglomerate FBO franchises buying up independents and jacking prices is only going to continue to squeeze GA unless and until the FAA wakes up and investigates it as what it is... price fixing.
The FBO's make a fortune. Otherwise they would not do what they are doing. I have no problem with the services they provide and the costs involved. Except when it becomes:
A) Price fixing
B) locally monopolistic
C) Charge ramp fees on federally funded ramps, just to walk through their door and park on said ramp. Or to pick up a passenger. That's extortion or a private "toll" on a federally funded transportation system.
I can walk through the gate myself, thank you very much.
The trend you mention of large conglomerate FBO franchises buying up independents and jacking prices is only going to continue to squeeze GA unless and until the FAA wakes up and investigates it as what it is... price fixing.
The FBO's make a fortune. Otherwise they would not do what they are doing. I have no problem with the services they provide and the costs involved. Except when it becomes:
A) Price fixing
B) locally monopolistic
C) Charge ramp fees on federally funded ramps, just to walk through their door and park on said ramp. Or to pick up a passenger. That's extortion or a private "toll" on a federally funded transportation system.
I can walk through the gate myself, thank you very much.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I'm afraid you're right, and probably whenever the new no-lead piston Av fuel replaces 100LL the situation won't be a whole lot different.
Fueling the Future of GA Feb 2014 EAA Advocacy and Safety Governmental
issues
PLENTY OF RESEARCH and interest has not made the path to finding
the most viable unleaded fuel for general aviation any less
difficult, but the aviation fuel industry recently made progress
toward the goal.
Progress is important because the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), various state agencies, and environmental groups
are all expecting solid movement toward unleaded general aviation
fuels in the coming years. Failure to move toward an unleaded
future would likely bring additional legal challenges to the EPA,
FAA, and GA community from environmental groups demanding an
end to leaded fuel in any form.
One area of progress is the development and funding of the
FAA's Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), established as a joint
government/industry/fuel developer effort to evaluate unleaded
aviation fuels on an equal footing and-most importantly-develop
data necessary to support a fleetwide transition to any new fuel.
EAA has been an active member of this consortium since its
inception. P AFI is now welcoming proposals for candidate fuels
to determine their viability and impact on the existing GA fleet,
requirements for production and distribution infrastructure, as well
as economic and environmental impact.
It is important to remember that a successful candidate fuel
needs to be more than a laboratory or small-scale test study winner.
An unleaded lOOLL replacement must be producible in large
enough quantities to serve the GA fleet, distributed throughout
the nation-presumably without a whole new infrastructure-and
economical enough not to deter flying.
Autogas has been a significant segment of aviation fuel since EAA
earned the first autogas STC in 1984. Tens of thousands of aircraft are
eligible to use autogas. While those piston-engine aircraft that require
high-octane avgas (and consume by far the most lOOLL annually)
are not equipped to use autogas, it works for
many smaller aircraft.
There is positive movement on the autogas front. Companies such as
Airworthy Au togas are working toward locating or cultivating
suppliers who can distribute autogas that meets the ASTM standard for
autogas as approved for the STC in the 1980s. Autogas blends have
changed greatly in 30 years due to production issues and environmental
requirements, sometimes in ways not beneficial for use in aviation
applications.
There are encouraging advances in the search for a lOOLL
replacement. In December, Shell Aviation became the first major oil
company to announce the development of a potential high-octane fuel
intended for fleetwide use. Shell now publicly joins the
well-publicized efforts of Swift Enterprises and General Aviation
Modifications Inc. in their quest for developing the most suitable
high-octane replacement for lOOLL.
There are other entities also doing their own development of
alternative fuels. EAA encourages that this work continue and all
candidate fuels be brought forth for evaluation under the PAFI
program. The multiple efforts underway show the best promise yet to
move the GA fleet to an unleaded future with the least possible
disruption.
I'm afraid you're right, and probably whenever the new no-lead piston Av fuel replaces 100LL the situation won't be a whole lot different.
Fueling the Future of GA Feb 2014 EAA Advocacy and Safety Governmental
issues
PLENTY OF RESEARCH and interest has not made the path to finding
the most viable unleaded fuel for general aviation any less
difficult, but the aviation fuel industry recently made progress
toward the goal.
Progress is important because the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), various state agencies, and environmental groups
are all expecting solid movement toward unleaded general aviation
fuels in the coming years. Failure to move toward an unleaded
future would likely bring additional legal challenges to the EPA,
FAA, and GA community from environmental groups demanding an
end to leaded fuel in any form.
One area of progress is the development and funding of the
FAA's Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), established as a joint
government/industry/fuel developer effort to evaluate unleaded
aviation fuels on an equal footing and-most importantly-develop
data necessary to support a fleetwide transition to any new fuel.
EAA has been an active member of this consortium since its
inception. P AFI is now welcoming proposals for candidate fuels
to determine their viability and impact on the existing GA fleet,
requirements for production and distribution infrastructure, as well
as economic and environmental impact.
It is important to remember that a successful candidate fuel
needs to be more than a laboratory or small-scale test study winner.
An unleaded lOOLL replacement must be producible in large
enough quantities to serve the GA fleet, distributed throughout
the nation-presumably without a whole new infrastructure-and
economical enough not to deter flying.
Autogas has been a significant segment of aviation fuel since EAA
earned the first autogas STC in 1984. Tens of thousands of aircraft are
eligible to use autogas. While those piston-engine aircraft that require
high-octane avgas (and consume by far the most lOOLL annually)
are not equipped to use autogas, it works for
many smaller aircraft.
There is positive movement on the autogas front. Companies such as
Airworthy Au togas are working toward locating or cultivating
suppliers who can distribute autogas that meets the ASTM standard for
autogas as approved for the STC in the 1980s. Autogas blends have
changed greatly in 30 years due to production issues and environmental
requirements, sometimes in ways not beneficial for use in aviation
applications.
There are encouraging advances in the search for a lOOLL
replacement. In December, Shell Aviation became the first major oil
company to announce the development of a potential high-octane fuel
intended for fleetwide use. Shell now publicly joins the
well-publicized efforts of Swift Enterprises and General Aviation
Modifications Inc. in their quest for developing the most suitable
high-octane replacement for lOOLL.
There are other entities also doing their own development of
alternative fuels. EAA encourages that this work continue and all
candidate fuels be brought forth for evaluation under the PAFI
program. The multiple efforts underway show the best promise yet to
move the GA fleet to an unleaded future with the least possible
disruption.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Seems like 100LL should have come down with the recent price drop on auto fuel.
44 gallons of product but very little of it becomes Avgas...
Seems like 100LL should have come down with the recent price drop on auto fuel.
44 gallons of product but very little of it becomes Avgas...
- Status
