Argument against high gas prices

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".

Ah.

So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people.
Interesting forum to make such an observation.



Sorry, it wasn't intended that way. There does seem to be a genetic thing;
those that have the aviation gene don't seem to be very good at business.
There are exceptions, but most of the people that I've met that run small
FBOs do it for the love of aviation, not because they make a good living at
it. That was my connection to the Okies, not that the Okies were "bad", but
that the deck was stacked against them. From everything I've seen, the deck
is stacked against small FBOs as well. Pretty sad, really. I honesty think
if I won the lottery, I'd buy/start an FBO. But I'd only be able to keep it
until the money ran out. ;^)

Enron employees were not required to buy Enron stock in their
retirement
plans. They did so because of one reason. Greed.

Is that why people buy XOM stock? Greed?

If you put your whole nestegg into XOM hoping to make a quick
killing, rather than choosing a well diversified portfolio that will
generate a safer, more modest return, yes. You have no one to blame
but yourself.

Is XOM stock suffering now or something? Let me guess...high fuel prices
and low demand are cutting into Exxon-Mobile profits.

-c

"Ken Finney" wrote in message
...

So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people. Interesting
forum to make such an observation.

Sorry, it wasn't intended that way.

*nod* Thanks for the clarification.

There are exceptions, but most of the people that I've met that run small
FBOs do it for the love of aviation, not because they make a good living
at it.

I'm not sure how that gene works. The really fancy FBO across the airport
with the newer, larger fleet -seems- to be getting its ass kicked by the FBO
I fly out of, which has an older fleet that doesn't bear the company name or
anything. The FBO I use has been there a long time, acquiring better
airport location, more aircraft, a new $250,000 TruFlight sim and...
hmmm... the fuel operation for the airport.

I honesty think if I won the lottery, I'd buy/start an FBO. But I'd only
be able to keep it until the money ran out. ;^)

A commuter airline just started down in Salem. Hasn't been commuter service
there for many years. Best of luck to 'em, but I don't see they're gonna
make it.

-c

"gatt" wrote

I find your prioritization of shareholders over Americans illuminating.

Weren't you the one complaining about personal attacks? - and then this?

Look, many of the shareholders are Americans, probably millions of them.
Like I said before, it's not the Evil Oil Empire, it's your friends and
neighbors. If you own any mutual funds you probably have stock in some of
these companies yourself.

Did you notice in the article you quoted that the truckers are passing the
increased fuel costs along to their customers? That being the case, how is
the cost of fuel eating them alive?

Business is business. If you want to be successful you need to realize that
the price of a product is not determined by what it costs to make it.

BDS

In article ,
"gatt" wrote:

At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To me this
seems abundantly obvious.

otoh - at 8.5 gph, fuel costs have no impact on my ability to fly. Heck, my
flying budget has seen more flexibility since I moved out of a hangar (at
$505/month) to a tie-down at $50/month. That $455/month pays for
a LOT of fuel.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Jun 8, 11:03 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a time.

I'd like to think that this was sarcasm, but I'm afraid you might be
telling the truth.


In the US, fuel consumption per GDP is down; everywhere else it's UP.

Maybe. But lowering consumption from a ridiculous high level might
leave you still much higher than someone else who rose from a low
level. (i.e. if you go from 100 to 98 on some scale, you're still
higher than someone who went from 10 to 20.)

Hangovers hurt, but they do
serve their purpose.

Maybe to go and get more petrol.

We could produce ten times more than we could "conserve".

Perhaps, but that not the point. To do so would only hasten the
consumption of what is left, and reduce the time for conversion to
some sustainable alternative.
It also adds a bunch of pollution.

On Jun 8, 1:07 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be 100
years.

Or not.....
If there are 100 years of production, we might have enough time to
find alternative somethings.
If there are substantially fewer years, worst case we are already in
deep doo-doo.

So, ya feel lucky???? Or do you think that working on conservation
and increased efficiency might be a good idea. After all, there is no
downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

On Jun 8, 2:24 pm, "gatt" wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in ...

Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
concerned.

Sure they are talking about it. But when push comes to shove they still
drive the same way they did when gas was 1.50/gal.

No they don't. For instance: General aviation. Pretty soon, only the
wealthy will be able to afford it. That will hurt the folks making $25,000
teaching them to fly, and the businesses that are struggling to make ends
meet, but it sure won't hurt the super wealthy.

At 10gph, I'd fly a hell of a lot more if fuel was 1.50/gallon. To me this
seems abundantly obvious.

-c

I too am a pilot. Aviation, even in the US, has it's challenges.
Fuel price is only one of many. We would be better off if we could
get rid of the LL and use only autogas. That alone would lower the
price appreciably.

On Jun 8, 3:27 pm, "gatt" wrote:
"Ken Finney" wrote in message

...



I'm not very familiar with larger FBOs, but smaller FBOs have pretty much
been a disaster zone since 1947. What was that line from "The Grapes of
Wrath"? "People shouldn't have to live like that." "Them aren't people,
them's Okies." Just substitute "FBOs" for "Okies".

Ah.

So basically you're suggesting that FBO owners aren't people. Interesting
forum to make such an observation.

-c
(But, I think everybody getting used to those sorts of comments when you
challenge big oil and their pricing schemes.)

PHOOOM! I think his point went flying right over your head. Please
re-read.

On Jun 8, 2:19 pm, "gatt" wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message

...

There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
the developed world, by far.

Nonsequitor. We also have some of the greatest freedoms and civil rights in
the world but by and large we wouldn't allow that to be used as justfication
for infringement upon them.

-c


What's the infringement???? I buy all the gas I choose to buy!
You want gas? Buy it at the posted price. As long as there is not
outright collusion between suppliers (frequently accused but never
demonstrated), they can ask any price they desire. You can buy it, or
not. Your choice. Your freedom.