X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4980858 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 May 2011 17:09:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=aeMH4JcVOnVr0LmJAzqEvfnmJyuaZufWdlng4HTRGCk= c=1 sm=0 a=MzCxSdh3GCoA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:17 a=HZJGGiqLAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=Z3CfbTmoqrLp0aQQJAEA:9 a=MgqZ7vBSVXLWVqAIkvEA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=HeoGohOdMD0A:10 a=Q-JN5GCGTgzUS4Gp:21 a=Z30CVjpt9RI6r57G:21 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=r_4y4dDTcYoT6XdYOrMA:7 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.167.5 Received: from [174.110.167.5] ([174.110.167.5:49555] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id AA/2C-03893-BEAFACD4; Wed, 11 May 2011 21:08:59 +0000 Message-ID: <8F23E89A68E547BB9D7E2E027B0850AE@EdPC> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:08:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0050_01CC0FFE.191ECAE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01CC0FFE.191ECAE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe that if the oil companies think they have any chance of = winning they will contest it regardless of the economic pay back. The = historically view any such attempt as the first foot in the door to = worst (from their perspective) attempts. Besides, the oil companies = have all of these lawyers that need to show they are worth their pay = {:>) - no offense intended, Chris. Ed From: Mark Steitle=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:50 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California Ernest,=20 Good question (I was wondering that myself). I guess we'll have to wait = and see if the oil companies just roll over, or if they'll stand up and = fight. Mark On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Ernest Christley = wrote: Mark Steitle wrote: Bill, You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt to put a little = pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel. = Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel = ethanol free. On another note, with the time it takes for things to = work their way through the court system, it will be years before this = gets resolved. The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys. =20 Sure, but would they? Will they pay for the attorneys knowing that = 100LL is such low volume and is going to have to go away eventually = anyhow? -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01CC0FFE.191ECAE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe that if the oil companies think they = have any=20 chance of winning they will contest it regardless of the economic pay=20 back.  The historically view any such attempt as the first foot in = the door=20 to worst (from their perspective) attempts.  Besides, the oil=20 companies have all of these lawyers that need to show they are = worth their=20 pay {:>) - no offense intended, Chris.
 
Ed
 
 

From: Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:50 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in = California

Ernest,
 
Good question (I was wondering that myself).  I guess we'll = have to=20 wait and see if the oil companies just roll over, or if = they'll stand=20 up and fight.
 
Mark

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Ernest = Christley <echristley@att.net> = wrote:
Mark Steitle wrote:
Bill,
 You could be right on that. =  It surely=20 won't hurt to put a little pressure on the FAA to find/approve an=20 alternative aviation fuel.  Personally, I would be happy if = they would=20 make premium auto fuel ethanol free.  On another note, with the = time it=20 takes for things to work their way through the court system, it will = be=20 years before this gets resolved.  The oil companies can afford = to hire=20 the best attorneys.
 
Sure, but would = they?=20  Will they pay for the attorneys knowing that 100LL is such low = volume=20 and is going to have to go away eventually anyhow?

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01CC0FFE.191ECAE0--