Avgas Coming Down?

Tanking fuel burns more fuel and costs more. Every 1,000
pounds of fuel carried uses 200 pounds per hour just to
carry that extra fuel. [Those numbers will vary by type and
conditions].


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
| "M" wrote:
|
| So why don't they raise their ticket price? The only
reason they
| abandon that line is their competition is able to hold
their price down
| by being even more efficient. All the fuel price talk
is just an
| excuse for the airlines.
|
| one of their competitors is Emirates Airlines. They refuel
at their
| homebase at ... aaaahhhhmmm ... very interesting rates.
|
| and rising ticket price might turn away 5% of current
customers, so the
| outcome would be the same.
|
| #m
| --
| Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm
|
| I Am Not A Terrorist
http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/

There is plenty of oil in the ground, oil is not a finite
material, it is produced by the Earth.

The rate of production (by the earth) is much less than the rate of
consumption. It's not like growing trees, it's more like harvesting
dinosaurs.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Jose" wrote)
The rate of production (by the earth) is much less than the rate of
consumption. It's not like growing trees, it's more like harvesting
dinosaurs.


Some would disagree:

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
"Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
"Fuel's Paradise"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...lance&n=283155
"The Deep Hot Biosphere" - Thomas Gold


Montblack-gold

Some would disagree...

The three links point to theories by Gold, about formation of oil in the
mantle. "Inorganically" says one - well, where does the carbon come
from? In any case, even if the theories were true (they have yet to be
satisfactorily tested), they don't indicate that oil formation is any
faster than dinosaur speed.

We are using it up at jet speed.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

100LL at my home airport went from $3.64/gal to $3.05/gal today. Wow,
what a drop.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Jose" wrote)
The rate of production (by the earth) is much less than the rate of
consumption. It's not like growing trees, it's more like harvesting
dinosaurs.


Some would disagree:


Some believe in Intelligent Design, flat earth, and astrology.

Martin Hotze wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Of course, if you don't like the company I'm sure they would not send a
hit-man to your house if you chose to buy your gas elsewhere.


one outcome is that AUA (Austrian Airlines) is cancelling their flight from
Vienna via Bangkok to Sydney with a B777 due to inefficiency, better: too
little margin on profit. They have more than 80% seats sold per flight, so
they can't get much better on this long distance, and they can't get any
more economical as they already use a B777. Fuel prices cap their profit
margin. So they have to close this destination (at an 80%+ of sold seats!)

Sounds like a good example of free market getting rid of inefficient
airlines. There must be a reason they choose to not just raise their
fares. If its because of competition that just shows you that someone
else is able to do it more efficiently. If its because the customers
won't pay more it just shows that the route isn't important enough to
them. People have to decided what is important for them to spend their
money no. For most of the world, airlines are not a social service.

-Robert

me wrote:
O.K. Robert

I guess your free market theories don't take in to account there illegal
activities huh !




"This story ran on nwitimes.com on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:12 AM CDT

WASHINGTON | Federal investigators are reportedly looking into whether BP
PLC manipulated crude-oil and gasoline markets, the latest in a string of
inquiries into the British oil company."

Sounds like a great example of how our country works. The article
starts out with "Federal Investigators are reportedly looking into".
This means we find illegal activity that may hinder the free market, we
investigate, and we put those at fault in jail. What more could you ask
for, Communism?

-Robert

Jim Macklin wrote:
The USA needs to build refineries, drill where ever oil is
located, or go back to walking and riding animals. Nuclear
power for cars is a long way away. What other power source
is there?

Yes. And the end effect of the gov't restricting where oil can be
drilled is higher gas prices. There is a price to be paid for gov't
restrictions. We have to ask if we're willing to pay it. The problem is
that most people don't realize they're paying it.

-Robert

I would actually argue that you have a valid point (hard to believe,
huh). As a society we need to decide what role we want gov't to play in
the daily working of society. Some people believe the gov't should take
the responsibility for the primary necessities of life (food, shelter,
fuel) etc. In this system the gov't chooses the prices and allocates
the resources based on need (since the prices are always such that
there is more demand then supply). However, I would submit to you that
examples of such gov'ts (Soviet Union, Cuba, China) have much more
corruption because the system rewards with power those that rise up in
gov't. It also fails to provide incentive for innovation.

The other side is to say the gov't should stay out of my business. Just
provide the things that don't make sense for me to do myself (national
defense, roads, etc). However, even in this world you need a gov't to
ensure people are playing by the fair rules of free market (not price
fixing, etc). I would submit to you that the end result of this system
is a much more efficient allocation of resources, more opportunities
for people to fairly succeed and a higher standard of living since
suppliers are rewarded for producing more products more efficiently.

-Robert


OtisWinslow wrote:
I think they should all be nationalized.


A responsible oil company should charge you as much as you are willing
to pay.