GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, toto said:

George Braly and GAMI don't seem to have any intention of making G100UL themselves - they are in the IP business, and they're going to sell licenses to producers who can make and sell the stuff per the GAMI recipe.  They sell licenses and STCs, and let the producers duke it out for market share.  I don't think it's in anyone's interest for aviation gasoline prices to go through the roof --- that just results in less demand.

Of course they won't produce it, but the royalties they will demand most certainly will raise the price.

As far price/demand goes...we are a captive market that will take a HUGE amount of price abuse before demand falls.  Look no further than what's happened to 100LL pricing over the last year: I paid $3 not that long ago, paid $5.89 last week, and that isn't even the highest I've paid.  Not at all happy about it, but I have flown just as much this year as last.  The idea that Braly isn't going to take advantage of his IP rights at our expense is, again, naive.

If you haven't noticed, I'm pretty mad that the government has just licensed Braly to pull money out of my pocket!  And, the "green" cover story to justify it is just too perfect

[Fly Boomer]

37 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme.

Unlikely George will have that power.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

This thread, and others, have made the unsubstantiated assertion that not having an STC, medical, or flying after your annual has expired will render your insurance null and void.  I don't believe that to be anywhere near categorically true.  For one thing, it would seem the 'violation' must be at least causally related to the reason for the crash.  Engine quits because the dual mag failed.  Guy with the G100UL STC gets covered and the guy with G100UL in his tanks but no STC is denied?  I seriously doubt that!

@Parker_Woodruff

What's the real story with claim denials over this kind of thing?

I think you are asking what is the risk of not paying for an STC and trying to fill your tanks with G100UL and fly.

• Technically flying "unairworthy"  intentionally without a valid STC can't be a good mark in your favor.   Your defense to the FAA/NTSB and insurance company (in the event of an incident/accident/ramp check) will be that you are a Mooney "cheap bastard".  Maybe the insurance companies won't deny a claim but I bet they really hammer you on future rates if you keep flying.  And the FAA will reprimand you with some sort of pain.
• I bet you that GAMI (that is Braly and Roehl - you keep saying just Braly) will work hard to force distributors and FBO's only sell G100UL to planes with valid STC.
  • Braly is an aeronautical engineer and a lawyer - he is not going to let this slip - and there are easy technological solutions today to electronically validate planes have proper paid for STC since all fuel sales are electronic. 
    • I bet it will be in the terms of his license. He is the only game in town so he has all the (monopoly) negotiating leverage
• Just like the seat belt fiasco in 2015-2017 (vendors without STC replacing seat belts) there will be FAA Ramp Checks.  It is so simple - take a sample - if it is yellow or green without an STC then the plane is grounded.  Same thing happened with seat belts.  I saw a C421B at my A&P on the last day of its Annual.  There was a ramp check of planes in the shop.  The 8 sets of seatbelts were almost new replacements but from a vendor without STC.  The plane was grounded for weeks while seat belts were ordered - many shops were shut down and there were few valid suppliers - and I think it cost the owner about $5K.
• I also bet since Braly is a lawyer that he puts A&P AI's on notice that they cannot sign off an Annual as airworthy if it has yellow or green (comingled) G100UL in the tanks or fuel lines without a valid STC.  Also those A&P's can't refill tanks on planes they are working on with G100UL unless the plane has the STC.

Edited September 2, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Will.iam]

Would really suck to fly to an annual and the field no longer has 100LL and thus have to get STC just to fly out of there when annual is complete. 

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I'm probably the only one that thinks this is HORRIBLE news.

Mark my words, we are going to get really hosed on what we pay for G100UL. For the reasons stated above 100LL is going to disappear FAST; even before the EPA issues their mandate (which is inevitable!).  Especially here in Kalifornia!  My prediction is that this time next year we will be paying $2 to $3 a gallon MORE for G100UL than we do today for 100LL.  Of course, when this comes to pass, all the Braly fan-boys will jump up and say, "Oh, we'd be paying that for 100LL now, anyway because of blah, blah, blah."

Regardless of the minuscule amount of lead involved in aviation (someone said 'not even a pimple') there is no doubt lead is bad stuff to living things.  The public has been conditioned to think they are about to die if there's a molecule of lead anywhere within 5 miles....the ambulance chasing attorneys are going to be all over FBOs, refineries, airports, and anyone they can think of almost immediately.  The defense of there's no alternative just won't fly anymore.  This is going to be spun as rich airplane folk that want to continue to poison the population!  100LL is not going to be a survivor in that litigious environment.

The government has just handed ONE MAN, George Braly, the keys to a nationwide monopoly.  There is NO competition.

To believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme.

Enjoy the next 6-12 months of low pice...I hope it takes longer.  But given how slow bureaucracies move (not just government ones) I hope the time frame is longer, but I'm not betting on it.

That’s already the case today. Only one company makes the lead we all use. 

[GeeBee]

3 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That’s already the case today. Only one company makes the lead we all use. 

Yes and it is in the UK. Things are going so well on the energy front there. Might not be able to manufacture it for a while.

[A64Pilot]

As was posted he could stand to reap I think it was 15 mil a year from a 10c a gl royalty. That’s nothing price wise

I think it likely we will be gouged, but not so sure he will be doing the gouging. I think it’s going to be like trying to rent a car a year or so ago, due to shortages, they gouged the stuff out of us, because they could. This stuff will I think be in short supply, I doubt all the ingredients are available in mass quantities, so the refiner will be gouged, and will pass it on etc.

But IF LL is still available, then the supply of UL can be allowed to grow until supply meets demand, then you slowly make LL more costly than UL, and demand for it will dry up.

CFC’s are / were being phased out in a very logical manner in first world countries, you can still get them, but they keep getting more and more expensive making the search for and implementation of replacements more and more attractive.

You can still R-22 for your old house AC, but it’s getting so expensive it may be better to replace the unit with one that uses R-410 or the new R-45 as 410 is going away too.

[MikeOH]

23 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I think you are asking what is the risk of not paying for an STC and trying to fill your tanks with G100UL and fly.

• Technically flying "unairworthy"  intentionally without a valid STC can't be a good mark in your favor.   Your defense to the FAA/NTSB and insurance company (in the event of an incident/accident/ramp check) will be that you are a Mooney "cheap bastard".  Maybe the insurance companies won't deny a claim but I bet they really hammer you on future rates if you keep flying.  And the FAA will reprimand you with some sort of pain.
• I bet you that GAMI (that is Braly and Roehl - you keep saying just Braly) will work hard to force distributors and FBO's only sell G100UL to planes with valid STC.
  • Braly is an aeronautical engineer and a lawyer - he is not going to let this slip - and there are easy technological solutions today to electronically validate planes have proper paid for STC since all fuel sales are electronic. 
    • I bet it will be in the terms of his license. He is the only game in town so he has all the (monopoly) negotiating leverage
• Just like the seat belt fiasco in 2015-2017 (vendors without STC replacing seat belts) there will be FAA Ramp Checks.  It is so simple - take a sample - if it is yellow or green without an STC then the plane is grounded.  Same thing happened with seat belts.  I saw a C421B at my A&P on the last day of its Annual.  There was a ramp check of planes in the shop.  The 8 sets of seatbelts were new but from a vendor without STC.  The plane was grounded for weeks while seat belts were ordered - many shops were shut down and there were few valid suppliers - and I think it cost the owner about $5K.
• I also bet since Braly is a lawyer that he puts A&P AI's on notice that they cannot sign off an Annual as airworthy if it has yellow or green (comingled) G100UL in the tanks or fuel lines without a valid STC.  Also those A&P's can't refill tanks on planes they are working on with G100UL unless the plane has the STC.

I’ll let an insurance expert weigh in on your first opinion. Again, IMO the violation needs to relate to the accident cause.

 I couldn’t agree more that he’ll use his trial experience to hunt STC scofflaws down. Glad you seem to be happy about it

If this was free market capitalism I’d be ok. But the government granting him a monopoly changes the situation completely!

[toto]

58 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

The idea that Braly isn't going to take advantage of his IP rights at our expense is, again, naive.

I didn’t mean to suggest that GAMI won’t charge a license fee or won’t make money. I just said that it isn’t in anyone’s interest for the price of aviation gasoline to skyrocket. Consumption of avgas is largely discretionary, and there is absolutely a point beyond which weekend flyers will find something else to do. 

Braly himself estimated a cost premium of 65 to 85 cents over 100LL, for what it’s worth.

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I’ll let an insurance expert weigh in on your first opinion. Again, IMO the violation needs to relate to the accident cause.

No expert but I think my insurence requires me to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and not to operate it if it’s not, plus a bunch of stuff about wars, volcanos and radiation so not real sure.

Installing or using something that requires an STC without the STC makes the aircraft not airworthy.

So while they may not deny your gear up claim, I’m pretty sure it’s within their right to do so.

I don’t think this is a Magnussen Moss Warranty act kind of thing.

‘But even if the STC is a couple of grand, that’s nothing, but $3 a gl is something.

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, toto said:

 

Braly himself estimated a cost premium of 65 to 85 cents over 100LL, for what it’s worth.

Not to be disrespectful, but I don’t think he has a clue what others may charge, and I’m sure he knows what the ingredients cost, but does he know they are available in the quantity required?

In a way this may be like the electric car thing, sounds great at first look, but where is that kind of quantity of electricity going to come from.

I can’t imagine all the ingredients are available in the required quantity, sure over time they can be made available, but not right away.

[toto]

31 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Not to be disrespectful, but I don’t think he has a clue what others may charge, and I’m sure he knows what the ingredients cost, but does he know they are available in the quantity required?

In a way this may be like the electric car thing, sounds great at first look, but where is that kind of quantity of electricity going to come from.

I can’t imagine all the ingredients are available in the required quantity, sure over time they can be made available, but not right away.

Dunno whether he has a clear understanding of the variables involved - I just meant that he’s on the record saying 65 to 85 cents a gallon. If he’s planning to leverage monopoly power to charge stratospheric prices for avgas, offering a specific, relatively modest number is a strange place to start.

[A64Pilot]

1 minute ago, toto said:

Dunno whether he has a clear understanding of the variables involved - I just meant that he’s on the record saying 65 to 85 cents a gallon. If he’s planning to leverage monopoly power to charge stratospheric prices for avgas, offering a specific, relatively modest number is a strange place to start.

If I understand what’s going on, beyond licensing agreements and STC charges, he’s not in control of price, and I suspect they won’t be outrageous, if STC price is crazy he will get a lot of ill will, if licensing is nuts, no refiner will bite.

I’m not saying he will gouge us, I don’t think he’s in the position to do so, but give a “Businessman” a monopoly and they will bend you over, the lead supplier didn’t have a monopoly, if he charged high enough someone else would supply the lead, but if this becomes the only fuel, someone else can’t supply it for less. Not saying it will happen, but the potential is there.

Whoever blends, refines etc the product will be in control of price, hopefully there will be more than one supplier. If several there should be competition.

It’s my understanding that this fuel is a blend of existing components, correct? No special or exotic never been done before cracking of petroleum etc involved? No Patented special process or machine?

The real work was getting it through testing / whatever Certification required and FAA approval, and I assume that’s what will keep some chemist from developing their own recipe that will work just as well, the Approval process.

[toto]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

It’s my understanding that this fuel is a blend of existing components, correct?

That’s my understanding. It’s gasoline plus an aromatics additive, blended in a proprietary ratio.

[MikeOH]

16 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Unlikely George will have that power.

He owns the IP and is a seasoned attorney…not seeing how he doesn’t have all the power in this situation!

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

He owns the IP and is a seasoned attorney…not seeing how he doesn’t have all the power in this situation!

One nice thing about having George fix the price is that it would be the same everywhere.

[MikeOH]

39 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

One nice thing about having George fix the price is that it would be the same everywhere.

You misunderstand me.  I am NOT saying George will fix the price at the pumps.  What I am saying is that we will be forced to pay whatever he desires for licensing, STCs, and royalties as he IS in complete control of those. The refiners, distributors, FBOs will most certainly pass those costs onto us.

I think he's being very smart saying it's only going to be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon. To use your argument, how is he going to be in control of the final pump price, anyway!  But by throwing out a 'reasonable' number he minimizes blow-back BEFORE the EPA mandates his product's use.  By then, too late, too bad, so sad.

[Pinecone]

I have known George for a many years.   Remember, first and foremost, he is a PILOT.  He owns and flies airplanes.  One of his first jobs was working for Ted Smith on designing the Aerostar.

Current use of AVGAS in the US is about 150 million gallons per year.   If he charges 10 cents per gallon as royalty, that is $15 million per year.  If the costs of fuel is $3 higher than now, the volume will be lower and he won't make as money.

As for STC price, I would bet the price will be low, and just to cover the paperwork cost of dealing with the FAA requirements and mailing the paperwork.  He WANTS you to buy the STC so you buy the fuel.

[MikeOH]

12 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

I have known George for a many years.   Remember, first and foremost, he is a PILOT.  He owns and flies airplanes.  One of his first jobs was working for Ted Smith on designing the Aerostar.

Current use of AVGAS in the US is about 150 million gallons per year.   If he charges 10 cents per gallon as royalty, that is $15 million per year.  If the costs of fuel is $3 higher than now, the volume will be lower and he won't make as money.

As for STC price, I would bet the price will be low, and just to cover the paperwork cost of dealing with the FAA requirements and mailing the paperwork.  He WANTS you to buy the STC so you buy the fuel.

Pinecone = Pollyanna

To be fair:

MikeOH = Cynic

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

You misunderstand me.

Your original statement:

"believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme."

was less nuanced.  Sorry if I misunderstood.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

You misunderstand me.  I am NOT saying George will fix the price at the pumps.  What I am saying is that we will be forced to pay whatever he desires for licensing, STCs, and royalties as he IS in complete control of those. The refiners, distributors, FBOs will most certainly pass those costs onto us.

I think he's being very smart saying it's only going to be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon. To use your argument, how is he going to be in control of the final pump price, anyway!  But by throwing out a 'reasonable' number he minimizes blow-back BEFORE the EPA mandates his product's use.  By then, too late, too bad, so sad.

It is or isn’t too late now. Just the fact an alternative exists means the friends of the Earth, the guys who brought the original lawsuits I believe traction on getting lead banned.

‘I think all we can hope for now is that the FAA has the power and the will to make it so that the phase in is gradual and LL won’t be forced out leaving a fuel shortage

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

‘I think all we can hope for now is that the FAA has the power and the will to make it so that the phase in is gradual and LL won’t be forced out leaving a fuel shortage

I doubt this is the end of GA, but ultimately corporations have more money than the FAA, and they will therefore prevail.

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Your original statement:

"believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme."

was less nuanced.  Sorry if I misunderstood.

No apology needed

Pricing is a pretty broad term and I was not clear that I did NOT mean pump price directly (how could they do that???), only that GAMI can dictate how much they want for their FRONT end pricing...which, obviously, dictates we will be paying for that at the pump, one way or another.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Current use of AVGAS in the US is about 150 million gallons per year.   If he charges 10 cents per gallon as royalty, that is $15 million per year.  If the costs of fuel is $3 higher than now, the volume will be lower and he won't make as money.

As for STC price, I would bet the price will be low, and just to cover the paperwork cost of dealing with the FAA requirements and mailing the paperwork.  He WANTS you to buy the STC so you buy the fuel.

I think this is logical and they way I hope things will work.

However I only know of two green fuels we switched to, first UL back in the day and both it and leaded were available for a time, but the UL was more expensive leading to many cars being mis-fueled, you could even buy “Emergency” fuel plastic tips to fit over a leaded nozzle so it would fit in an UL car, but UL was significantly more expensive.

Then much later it was ULSD, one attraction to having a Diesel truck was Diesel was cheaper than gas, often much cheaper, but when ULSD replaced Diesel, it was priced about the same as Premium gas, and I think still is, don’t have a Diesel anymore so I don’t track it like when I did.

So I think it’s logical to expect this UL fuel will cost more, not because George is making it so, just because it seems there is precedent.

I just hope 94 UL also become available, it ought to cost less than LL, it’s just LL without the lead?

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I doubt this is the end of GA, but ultimately corporations have more money than the FAA, and they will therefore prevail.

Of course this isn't the end of GA. SHEESH!

What it does mean, IMO, is far greater avgas pricing (like 30% to 50%, maybe more).  GA has already proven we can absorb that kind of increase (the last year or so is direct evidence).

The end result is removing a minuscule amount of lead at the cost of more money in Braly's and everyone else in the supply chain's pockets all at OUR expense.  Commercial GA will just pass that cost onto consumers with higher ticket/freight prices and those of us recreational flyers will just be forced to bend over.

I'd put my money on the government prevailing over ANY company if it comes to EPA/"The Environment" issues.