GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[201Mooniac]

11 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Think about it, California is / has banned ICE cars, you think for a second they have a problem banning lead?

Already done in Santa Clara County.  No 100LL at my airport or other county run airports.  I would be thrilled to have an UL alternative.  In addition to the G100UL, Swift Fuels says they will be submitting their 100UL for STC approval in Q1 2023.  We currently have a Swift 94UL pump on the field but very few airplanes that can use it.  There does not seem to be any FAA inspectors around checking for the Swift STC when people go for fuel.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

They are not going to let you burn leaded fuel.

 

EXACTLY!!!

Good grief, man, that's EXACTLY why George ends up with a DE FACTO MONOPOLY!

How you can't see or admit that is baffling!  Or, maybe you can and think it's perfectly ok!?!?

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I see it similarly to downloading music.  Once you pay your fee, you can play the song as often as you want.  G100UL, like music, is intellectual property that you pay a licensing fee to use legally.

Well, if after paying an initial fee you then get to pay ANOTHER fee every time you play the song it would be closer to a valid analogy. But, you have a CHOICE as to what music you want to pay to listen to.  That CHOICE will NOT be available to us with G100UL; it will be the ONLY "song" out there!

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, 201Mooniac said:

In addition to the G100UL, Swift Fuels says they will be submitting their 100UL for STC approval in Q1 2023.  We currently have a Swift 94UL pump on the field but very few airplanes that can use it.  There does not seem to be any FAA inspectors around checking for the Swift STC when people go for fuel.

That is VERY good news; Q1 2023 would be excellent!  I think two competitors in our small market will provide a fair price based on real cost and a profit margin that is tenable. 

Also, good to know the FAA isn't jumping out of gas pumps, just yet

[GeeBee]

45 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

EXACTLY!!!

Good grief, man, that's EXACTLY why George ends up with a DE FACTO MONOPOLY!

How you can't see or admit that is baffling!  Or, maybe you can and think it's perfectly ok!?!?

It is not baffling. George unlike some people knew that leaded fuel was going to cease, and he made sure he was in a position to sell unleaded fuel. Those people can be called innovators, prescient, or far sighted, but not baffling. Equally so, nothing is guaranteed for George. Just ask Mark Andreessen. There are plenty of entities with very deep pockets that can engineer around GAMI (as they did with Andreessen), and if they do then we will find the real value of the avgas market. The fact they have not done so since the problem was identified 30 years ago, should inform you.

 

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

They are not going to let you burn leaded fuel.

 

Exactly!! That’s the point.

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

It is not baffling. George unlike some people knew that leaded fuel was going to cease, and he made sure he was in a position to sell unleaded fuel. Those people can be called innovators, prescient, or far sighted, but not baffling. Equally so, nothing is guaranteed for George. Just ask Mark Andreessen. There are plenty of entities with very deep pockets that can engineer around GAMI (as they did with Andreessen), and if they do then we will find the real value of the avgas market. The fact they have not done so since the problem was identified 30 years ago, should inform you.

 

Well, thanks for the opinion on how prescient George is.  So, what?

Doesn't entitle him to a monopoly!

Understand, yet again, if the EPA does NOT ban 100LL or a competitor appears, then I have no problem with George getting whatever he can out of us as we will have a CHOICE.

FORCING us to purchase his product via government decree (EPA banning 100LL) is NOT a free-market and he does NOT deserve to benefit from such a decree issued simply because he provided the ONLY alternative to 100LL.

Talk to me after Q1 2023...if Swift fuels gets approval for their version and THEN the EPA bans 100LL I'll happily quit my bitchin'

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, T. Peterson said:

Exactly!! That’s the point.

That shipped sailed in 1942 see Wickard v Filburn SCOTUS case

[GeeBee]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, thanks for the opinion on how prescient George is.  So, what?

Doesn't entitle him to a monopoly!

Understand, yet again, if the EPA does NOT ban 100LL or a competitor appears, then I have no problem with George getting whatever he can out of us as we will have a CHOICE.

FORCING us to purchase his product via government decree (EPA banning 100LL) is NOT a free-market and he does NOT deserve to benefit from such a decree issued simply because he provided the ONLY alternative to 100LL.

Talk to me after Q1 2023...if Swift fuels gets approval for their version and THEN the EPA bans 100LL I'll happily quit my bitchin'

So how do you explain your airport limiting the number of FBO's?

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

So how do you explain your airport limiting the number of FBO's?

Do they limit it to ONLY ONE?

Oh, and I can FLY to another airport!

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

That is VERY good news; Q1 2023 would be excellent!  I think two competitors in our small market will provide a fair price based on real cost and a profit margin that is tenable. 

Also, good to know the FAA isn't jumping out of gas pumps, just yet

Does that mean we will have to buy two STC’s?

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

That shipped sailed in 1942 see Wickard v Filburn SCOTUS case

Despite the fact that was a terrible ruling which was made with such contorted logic merely to increase government control, I fail to see its applicability to our discussion.  That ruling had zip to do with de facto monopolies.

[RobertGary1]

Funny how people who’ve never run a business think the highest profit point is at the max price point. 
There are people who believe the only reason McD’s doesn’t charge $50 for a Big Mac is because they’re being nice (“not greedy”) hehe 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Does that mean we will have to buy two STC’s?

I suspect so.  But, at least there will competition.

Personally, I think a legal challenge could be made regarding the demand for an STC from GAMI when the FAA issued a blanket approval covering ALL piston engines without testing evidence for each and every variation.  It was unprecedented.  What's the point of an individual STC when the FAA has decreed that G100UL is usable in ALL piston aircraft?  The idea behind the FAA controlling the STC process is to ensure safety; they've decreed G100Ul safe.  Protecting IP/patents is NOT in the FAA's sphere of authority!

[toto]

Kind of a side question to the main thread here, but …

Is the aromatic blend that GAMI produced something that could be sold as an additive? Iow your FBO just sells mogas on the field, and you dump in a bottle of GAMI goodness in a ratio prescribed by the STC?

That would allow GAMI to sell directly to consumers, avoid the distribution problems, and create a synergistic relationship with existing producers.

But I have no idea whether this is feasible or whether there is any precedent for a fuel additive STC. 

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Funny how people who’ve never run a business think the highest profit point is at the max price point. 
There are people who believe the only reason McD’s doesn’t charge $50 for a Big Mac is because they’re being nice (“not greedy”) hehe 

LOL!

Thing is, McD's has competition, George will NOT

[MikeOH]

29 minutes ago, toto said:

Kind of a side question to the main thread here, but …

Is the aromatic blend that GAMI produced something that could be sold as an additive? Iow your FBO just sells mogas on the field, and you dump in a bottle of GAMI goodness in a ratio prescribed by the STC?

That would allow GAMI to sell directly to consumers, avoid the distribution problems, and create a synergistic relationship with existing producers.

But I have no idea whether this is feasible or whether there is any precedent for a fuel additive STC. 

I don't see how that would work out.  Auto gas STCs are very specific and I believe the limitations go beyond just the octane difference.  Vapor pressure, additives that attack certain fuel system components, etc.  Plus, I don't think those STCs work with ethanol bearing fuels...and here in Kalifornia, it's pretty tough to find gas without ethanol.  Hope I'm wrong because I like your 'out of the box' idea!  Of course, George would still have a monopoly but without all the middle-men mark ups.

[A64Pilot]

28 minutes ago, toto said:

Kind of a side question to the main thread here, but …

Is the aromatic blend that GAMI produced something that could be sold as an additive? Iow your FBO just sells mogas on the field, and you dump in a bottle of GAMI goodness in a ratio prescribed by the STC?

That would allow GAMI to sell directly to consumers, avoid the distribution problems, and create a synergistic relationship with existing producers.

But I have no idea whether this is feasible or whether there is any precedent for a fuel additive STC. 

If I could find out the ratio, then I could make a guess what your saying.

My SWAG is that it’s possible for the truck to pull up and based on what you want, you could get 94UL or 100UL based on needs, many little aircraft for instance are powered by C-85’s etc that was initially Certified on 73 Octane fuel and I believe even the R-1340 was too, so they have no need for 100 Octane.

I doubt though even if the mix were 50 to 1 that he would allow just the aromatic to be sold as you could muck up the ratio maybe detonate your engine to death and cry that it was the fuel’s fault, when you messed up.

But me hearing that the fuel should only cost say a buck a gl more to make than 94UL makes me think it’s a low ratio.

I was under the impression that the whole fuel was a special blend, but if it’s only a small percentage by volume, then getting it on line should go much faster

Many fuels are blended at the Jobber, All car gas came in the pipeline where I lived as base stock, all brands were this base stock. Jobber I bought fuel from was Chevron, he took the base stock and added additives making it regular, mid grade or premium and the additives are what makes say Chevron different than what 7 to 11 sells.

Also Ethanol is not in the fuel that is in the pipe, it’s added or not by the Jobber.

Point is the fuel suppliers have been blending fuels for a long time at the local level, if that’s all that’s required here then they are used to it. They have the equipment, All we need are supplies of 94UL and the aromatic and we are in business.

All this is pure speculation of course, I could be way off.

[RobertGary1]

29 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL!

Thing is, McD's has competition, George will NOT

Just changes the location of the intercept line doesn’t make it infinite. Don’t forget we’re already in this situation today with lead 

[PeteMc]

29 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Doesn't entitle him to a monopoly!

I don't disagree that AT THE MOMENT George has a monopoly because he is FIRST and the ONLY one with a no lead Avgas.  But I don't get your train of thought on why he is "entitled" to a monopoly??? 

There's nothing stopping you from creating another no lead formula.  And there are actually others currently working on it. So as soon as one of them gets a formula approved, no more monopoly.  Who knows, they may even get it approved without requiring an STC...  So would that mean they also are "entitled" to a monopoly? 

[RobertGary1]

35 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I suspect so.  But, at least there will competition.

Personally, I think a legal challenge could be made regarding the demand for an STC from GAMI when the FAA issued a blanket approval covering ALL piston engines without testing evidence for each and every variation.  It was unprecedented.  What's the point of an individual STC when the FAA has decreed that G100UL is usable in ALL piston aircraft?  The idea behind the FAA controlling the STC process is to ensure safety; they've decreed G100Ul safe.  Protecting IP/patents is NOT in the FAA's sphere of authority!

The idea behind the stc is that it gives the holder exclusive rights to sell reclaim their investment. It’s intellectual property. It’s the only reason someone dumps money jnto proving something to the faa 

[RobertGary1]

2 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

I don't disagree that AT THE MOMENT George has a monopoly because he is FIRST and the ONLY one with a no lead Avgas.  But I don't get your train of thought on why he is "entitled" to a monopoly??? 

There's nothing stopping you from creating another no lead formula.  And there are actually others currently working on it. So as soon as one of them gets a formula approved, no more monopoly.  Who knows, they may even get it approved without requiring an STC...  So would that mean they also are "entitled" to a monopoly? 

True. The faa has not excluded others from creating their own formula. They’re not creating the monopoly here. I think it’s a lot of chicken littles . 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Just changes the location of the intercept line doesn’t make it infinite. Don’t forget we’re already in this situation today with lead 

Oh, I get your point and do understand pricing curves.  I'm not claiming George will go for maximum price.  But, I'll be the first to grant he's an awfully smart lawyer, engineer, and business man.  I'm betting, without any competition, he will price it right at the point most of us will bend over and take it vs. abandoning GA.  He will maximize his profit at our expense whereas competition would limit how much more we will pay (and once 100LL goes away we will pay more).

[201Steve]

I think the continuation of FAA’s unleaded gas program, whatever it’s called, is good reason to make the STC formula as cheap as possible. They will eventually have to compete, without question, with an alternative and if you keep your eyes down field, your not likely to discourage a change over by making it excessively expensive early on. 

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

I don't disagree that AT THE MOMENT George has a monopoly because he is FIRST and the ONLY one with a no lead Avgas.  But I don't get your train of thought on why he is "entitled" to a monopoly??? 

There's nothing stopping you from creating another no lead formula.  And there are actually others currently working on it. So as soon as one of them gets a formula approved, no more monopoly.  Who knows, they may even get it approved without requiring an STC...  So would that mean they also are "entitled" to a monopoly? 

I'm saying he's NOT entitled to a monopoly!  The government will hand him one the minute the EPA bans 100LL.  That's been my point and angst all along.

I am hopeful ANOTHER vendor will appear BEFORE the EPA bans 100LL.  As you comically imply, then there will no longer be a monopoly.