GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

My significant angst over this ‘miracle fuel’ (to hear some here rave) is WHEN California and/or the EPA ban 100LL. 

 

FIFY. 100LL was always going to get banned. It was just a matter of when.

[EricJ]

18 minutes ago, John-Paul said:

That's a weird way to look at it.  We're trying to incentivize early adoption of the STCs to fund a more rapid deveployment of the fuel.  Remember, this isn't a government program, where we just print whatever money we need.  We're a small aviation R&D company, and those efforts are funded by the sale of our products and services.  When you buy a set of GAMIjectors, tip tanks, G100UL STCs, etc, a generous portion of that money goes to developing some next GA improvement. 

John-Paul

Not really.   A bunch of us recently went through trying to purchase autopilots that are still vaporware.   They wanted to take my $6k up front.    They're still not delivering and have no expected date of delivery.   This just smells similar to me.

[Fly Boomer]

32 minutes ago, John-Paul said:

That's a weird way to look at it.  We're trying to incentivize early adoption of the STCs to fund a more rapid deveployment of the fuel.  Remember, this isn't a government program, where we just print whatever money we need.  We're a small aviation R&D company, and those efforts are funded by the sale of our products and services.  When you buy a set of GAMIjectors, tip tanks, G100UL STCs, etc, a generous portion of that money goes to developing some next GA improvement. 

John-Paul

JP,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm delighted to see you here.  We like it when people in the aviation industry come by and contribute or answer questions.  Not everyone is contentious.  I read earlier that after a few Beech people, a couple of our members were next in line for the STCs.  If the antagonistic comments get to be a hassle, there is an automated way to block people you no longer want to hear from.

Thanks for being here.

[rahill]

1 hour ago, John-Paul said:

The reality is that 100LL is going away, with or without our involvement.  Did the certification of our fuel accelerate that?  Maybe, maybe not.  The EPA has been on the verge of issuing an endangerment finding for years.

Manufacture and deployment of a brand new fuel isn't a cheap or easy prospect, and that money has to come from somewhere.  It's true there are some "cents per gallon" to be made on the licensing of the fuel, but truthfully it probably isn't as much as you think, and it will be years before all the overhead is covered on the vast progress we've made up to this point.   The STC fees pay for some (but not all) of the years of essentially unpaid work, and also pay for the upcoming costs.  Without that, it would still be years before we could get the fuel in the field.  Where would that leave people in places where leaded fuel was banned? Flying their bicycles to work?

My assumption is most pilots would rather pay roughly the cost of filling up the aircraft one time for an STC vs the alternatives one 1) no fuel for your aircraft or 2) having to develop your own alternative fuel.  I could be wrong about all that, though.  Electric airplanes may be right around the corner, and all this fuel conversation may be moot.  

John-Paul

I appreciate the effort you put into developing the fuel.  Unleaded auto gas has been around for almost 50 years (1975), it's amazing that 100LL has lasted this long. It's extremely fortunate that as more local communities grab hold of the lead issue, significant or not, there's a viable alternative on the horizon.  

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

FIFY. 100LL was always going to get banned. It was just a matter of when.

Fair enough.

But you just helped prove my point: the EPA/Kalifornia has been chomping at the bit could not, until now, do so as there were NO alternatives. Even the mighty EPA could not survive destroying all piston aircraft…until now!

[John-Paul]

4 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

JP,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm delighted to see you here.  We like it when people in the aviation industry come by and contribute or answer questions.  Not everyone is contentious.  I read earlier that after a few Beech people, a couple of our members were next in line for the STCs.  If the antagonistic comments get to be a hassle, there is an automated way to block people you no longer want to hear from.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks!  I'm just here to help and try to answer questions.  Without knowing the backstory or the people involved, people sometimes get the wrong ideas or jump to the wrong conclusions.  It happens in all walks of life.  I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

John-Paul

[John-Paul]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Fair enough.

But you just helped prove my point: the EPA/Kalifornia has been chomping at the bit could not, until now, do so as there were NO alternatives. Even the mighty EPA could not survive destroying all piston aircraft…until now!

I'm flattered to think the EPA/PRK couldn't do a big sweeping thing without our help.  That makes me feel important!   I'm glad we don't make electric stoves, or they would ban propane for sure!

Jpt

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

JP,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm delighted to see you here.  We like it when people in the aviation industry come by and contribute or answer questions.  Not everyone is contentious.  I read earlier that after a few Beech people, a couple of our members were next in line for the STCs.  If the antagonistic comments get to be a hassle, there is an automated way to block people you no longer want to hear from.

Thanks for being here.

GMAB

Dissenting opinions like mine are contentious because they don’t align with your self righteous opinion?  WOW, you must really miss the old pre-Elon Twitter where dissenting views were just eliminated.

Amazing, telling him how to block views he doesn’t want to hear. A real free speech fan, you are

[201Mooniac]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Fair enough.

But you just helped prove my point: the EPA/Kalifornia has been chomping at the bit could not, until now, do so as there were NO alternatives. Even the mighty EPA could not survive destroying all piston aircraft…until now!

Well at least Santa Clara county in CA has already banned the sale of 100LL and that was before the G100UL announcement.  The statewide ban has been moving through the legislature for more than a year now that I'm aware of.  The bans were not caused by G100UL being announced.

[rahill]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Fair enough.

But you just helped prove my point: the EPA/Kalifornia has been chomping at the bit could not, until now, do so as there were NO alternatives. Even the mighty EPA could not survive destroying all piston aircraft…until now!

It didn't stop Santa Clara County - they banned the sale of 100LL more than a year ago with no viable alternative available.  That was done to speed up the closure of the airport, not to sell unleaded fuel.  

[GeeBee]

Ditto me on the above. The ban came before 100UL was approved. In fact it was very dicey at the time of the ban that it would be approved. If one remembers, it was very surprising the application was approved as it was stuck in FAA purgatory. GAMI took a huge risk and expended a large amount of capital, I'm not going to complain about their attempt to recover their investment. Nor do I think they have carte blanche to gouge us. Swift is over the horizon and will likely be approved easily, because GAMI paved the way in both procedure and technology. With that competition will moderate any excessive profiteering. I wish both well.  

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, John-Paul said:

I'm flattered to think the EPA/PRK couldn't do a big sweeping thing without our help.  That makes me feel important!   I'm glad we don't make electric stoves, or they would ban propane for sure!

Jpt

Well, I think it’s pretty bold for you to expect us to believe that your company spent over a decade and millions of dollars to develop a more expensive product…just what made you think you were going to get a profitable return on that idea?  Oh, yeah, you knew the FAA/PRK was looking for any way to ban 100LL and by bringing G100 to market you’d have monopoly.

Sorry, despite your posts that spin this as saving starving children in Africa, I’m not that naive. Your company didn’t do this out of altruism but to make a buck! I’m the first to say more power to you, but that’s in a FREE market.

The sweetheart deal the FAA gave you with a BLANKET STC is what is incongruous! If the FAA has deemed G100UL igood in ALL piston aircraft without demanding testing of ALL piston aircraft then an STC is completely unnecessary! But it provides your company a de facto monopoly! I’ll give it to George, he’s as good as any career politician!

 If you were the GA/environmental heroes you’re trying to portray, then you’d just give away the STC… the amount of money you’re going to make off even a few cents per gallon is going to be staggering! And, I’m betting it’s going to be more than a few cents.

Paying back your investment is not a concern. But I suspect you know that already.

 

[GeeBee]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I think it’s pretty bold for you to expect us to believe that your company spent over a decade and millions of dollars to develop a more expensive product…just what made you think you were going to get a profitable return on that idea?  Oh, yeah, you knew the FAA/PRK was looking for any way to ban 100LL and by bringing G100 to market you’d have monopoly.

Sorry, despite your posts that spin this as saving starving children in Africa, I’m not that naive. Your company didn’t do this out of altruism but to make a buck! I’m the first to say more power to you, but that’s in a FREE market.

The sweetheart deal the FAA gave you with a BLANKET STC is what is incongruous! If the FAA has deemed G100UL igood in ALL piston aircraft without demanding testing of ALL piston aircraft then an STC is completely unnecessary! But it provides your company a de facto monopoly! I’ll give it to George, he’s as good as any career politician!

 If you were the GA/environmental heroes you’re trying to portray, then you’d just give away the STC… the amount of money you’re going to make off even a few cents per gallon is going to be staggering! And, I’m betting it’s going to be more than a few cents.

Paying back your investment is not a concern. But I suspect you know that already.

 

They don't have a monopoly. There is Swift coming along fast and big oil has limitless resources to crush them. They are still in a high risk environment.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Your company didn’t do this out of altruism but to make a buck! I’m the first to say more power to you, but that’s in a FREE market.

Just out of curiosity, is this the free market that PROMOTES companies to form monopolies or the 'free market' that actually means intense government regulation to PREVENT monopolies?  Surely you're not arguing for the latter definition, right?  

 

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

A real free speech fan, you are

As a reminder, speech in the US has never been free, only certain forms are protected.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, rahill said:

It didn't stop Santa Clara County - they banned the sale of 100LL more than a year ago with no viable alternative available.  That was done to speed up the closure of the airport, not to sell unleaded fuel.  

Certainly there are cities that chose to ban things they don’t want. I believe some cities don’t allow gas stations. And, no surprise some Kalifornia city council bought and paid for with developer money would use lead as an excuse  to further their goal.

 

[GeeBee]

Let me ask you this. Since you believe GAMI is going to get so rich, if they were a public company traded on a public exchange would you invest? 

[John-Paul]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I think it’s pretty bold for you to expect us to believe that your company spent over a decade and millions of dollars to develop a more expensive product…just what made you think you were going to get a profitable return on that idea?  Oh, yeah, you knew the FAA/PRK was looking for any way to ban 100LL and by bringing G100 to market you’d have monopoly.

Sorry, despite your posts that spin this as saving starving children in Africa, I’m not that naive. Your company didn’t do this out of altruism but to make a buck! I’m the first to say more power to you, but that’s in a FREE market.

The sweetheart deal the FAA gave you with a BLANKET STC is what is incongruous! If the FAA has deemed G100UL igood in ALL piston aircraft without demanding testing of ALL piston aircraft then an STC is completely unnecessary! But it provides your company a de facto monopoly! I’ll give it to George, he’s as good as any career politician!

 If you were the GA/environmental heroes you’re trying to portray, then you’d just give away the STC… the amount of money you’re going to make off even a few cents per gallon is going to be staggering! And, I’m betting it’s going to be more than a few cents.

Paying back your investment is not a concern. But I suspect you know that already.

 

Don't get me wrong, it isn't altruism.  We hope G100UL is very profitable for us in the long run.  It's a business, and that what businesses (hope) to do.

 

I don't make any claims that we're GA warrior and environmental saviors either.  I think the "lead poising our babies" trope is WAY overplayed.  It isn't a zero effect issue, either. 

 

The writing was on the wall 20 years ago regarding 100LL.  We chose not to bury our heads in the sand when we realized it was a problem we could solve and people would pay us to solve.  That's the free market.

 

Your statements about the STC process illustrates you have NO IDEA what it took to get this done. 

 

You said paying back our investment isn't a concern . . . maybe not to you, but it's sure a concern for those of us hoping to keep the business running.

 

6 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we would EVER get the STCs.  2 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we were EVER going to get to sell STCs.  

 

Like Guy said, Swift may be right on our heels.  Someone we don't even know about might be quietly going through the STC process, and almost done, right now.  EAGLE/PAFI may negate the whole STC process and the FAA may declare all piston engines able to use approved unleaded fuels by some executive fiat.  I might get hit by a school bus tomorrow.  The future is always uncertain.

 

By selling STCs  now for about the cost of a full tank of fuel, we hope to be able to get fuel to market sooner.  That's not a trade secret, that's just sensible business.  Some people out there will appreciate our efforts enough to spend that money to help us accomplish that goal.  They know it will benefit us both in the end.

 

Here's the other side of the free market.  You don't have to ever buy the STC or the fuel.  You can probably get 100LL for years to come.  You can (maybe) switch to an electric airplane or a diesel someday soon.  You can make and certify your own fuel.  You can give up flying and take the bus.  You have options.

 

Trying to paint the owners of GAMI, or plain ol' employees like me, as some kind of gougers, racketeers, or money grubbers makes it plain that you don't know us very well.  Anyone who does know us on a personal level will tell you that isn't who we are.  That's just the truth.

John-Paul

[GeeBee]

 

[T. Peterson]

If the government has been able to put up with 100LL this long, I sure hope they will put up with it till there are at least two different companies supplying alternative fuel. 
Entrepreneurship is the very warp and woof of our capitalist economy, but so is competition. 
I wholeheartedly salute the efforts of these gentlemen and wish them a very successful return on their investment. If their product is as good as claimed, the market will vindicate them. But if the government removes any other alternative than one company’s product it is no longer entrepreneurship, free enterprise or capitalism.
The very idea of an entrepreneur is that he invents or develops something that persuades customers not that they are bent over backwards under the weight of government.

[T. Peterson]

14 minutes ago, John-Paul said:

Don't get me wrong, it isn't altruism.  We hope G100UL is very profitable for us in the long run.  It's a business, and that what businesses (hope) to do.

 

I don't make any claims that we're GA warrior and environmental saviors either.  I think the "lead poising our babies" trope is WAY overplayed.  It isn't a zero effect issue, either. 

 

The writing was on the wall 20 years ago regarding 100LL.  We chose not to bury our heads in the sand when we realized it was a problem we could solve and people would pay us to solve.  That's the free market.

 

Your statements about the STC process illustrates you have NO IDEA what it took to get this done. 

 

You said paying back our investment isn't a concern . . . maybe not to you, but it's sure a concern for those of us hoping to keep the business running.

 

6 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we would EVER get the STCs.  2 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we were EVER going to get to sell STCs.  

 

Like Guy said, Swift may be right on our heels.  Someone we don't even know about might be quietly going through the STC process, and almost done, right now.  EAGLE/PAFI may negate the whole STC process and the FAA may declare all piston engines able to use approved unleaded fuels by some executive fiat.  I might get hit by a school bus tomorrow.  The future is always uncertain.

 

By selling STCs  now for about the cost of a full tank of fuel, we hope to be able to get fuel to market sooner.  That's not a trade secret, that's just sensible business.  Some people out there will appreciate our efforts enough to spend that money to help us accomplish that goal.  They know it will benefit us both in the end.

 

Here's the other side of the free market.  You don't have to ever buy the STC or the fuel.  You can probably get 100LL for years to come.  You can (maybe) switch to an electric airplane or a diesel someday soon.  You can make and certify your own fuel.  You can give up flying and take the bus.  You have options.

 

Trying to paint the owners of GAMI, or plain ol' employees like me, as some kind of gougers, racketeers, or money grubbers makes it plain that you don't know us very well.  Anyone who does know us on a personal level will tell you that isn't who we are.  That's just the truth.

John-Paul

I do not for a minute doubt your integrity or for a minute suspect you of nefarious motives. I absolutely admire your efforts and hard work.

If 100LL is available for years to come then I have no issue. My concern is not with you at all as you can’t control the EPA or the political environment. But if the government steps in and essentially grants you a monopoly by eliminating 100LL before there is any other option I may simply be priced out of GA. This would not be due to greed on your part, but is simply a law of economics. Competition drives pricing. After all what does it even mean to use the term, “priced competitively”?

 

 

[GeeBee]

32 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

But if the government removes any other alternative than one company’s product it is no longer entrepreneurship, free enterprise or capitalism.

They have since July 31, 1790.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." US Constitution, Article I Section 8

 

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

They don't have a monopoly. There is Swift coming along fast and big oil has limitless resources to crush them. They are still in a high risk environment.

Which highlights the risk of pre-paying for one particular STC with no guarantees it'll even be distributed in an area that you fly to and no timeline for when it might be distributed anywhere.

I wish them the best, and I've been looking forward to opportunities to use their product economically, but those do not even appear to be positively identified on the horizon just yet.   

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

They have since July 31, 1790.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." US Constitution, Article I Section 8

That doesn't remove alternatives, it prevents others from producing the same thing. But with only one approved unleaded fuel, banning 100LL would force everyone to either buy the one and only product or not fly.

[GeeBee]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

That doesn't remove alternatives, it prevents others from producing the same thing. But with only one approved unleaded fuel, banning 100LL would force everyone to either buy the one and only product or not fly.

Sort of like when you buy land foreseeing the absolute need of someone for it? Is that a monopoly too? All GAMI did was fore see the future and create a product that met it, just like land speculation.

[redbaron1982]

I really don't get the ones that are complaining about GAMI buisness model of selling the STC.

Hey, if you don't want to use G100UL don't pay for the STC, that's it. 

All the people complaining sounds more like they are desperate to get G100UL but they don't want to pay for it, quite childish.

GAMI initiative of investing to develop this is quite risky, a lot of things can go wrong. All the aiports I know (not many) have the possibility to handle one type of AvGas, getting them to switch to G100UL when not everyone is getting the STC is losing clients.

Switching a whole infrastructure that has been running with one type of fuel to another type of fuel that, although technically possible, from a legal point of view cannot be used in any aircraft is paramount.

If there is any one to blame here is the FAA, who should have approved G100UL without the need of a STC, I don't know how that can be handled from a legal stand point (placards, different specific weight) but they should have come up with a solution that do not require a STC.

Then any aircraft that previously used 100LL could now use G100UL, without any bureaucratics. And then airports/FBO could have an easy way to go to G100UL, for sure starting in those areas where 100LL is already banned.