View Full Version : Petrol £5 a gallon? Maybe £8!
According to to day's UK noos.
I remember buying 5 gallons (that's a bundle of litres to yeus guys) for ONE POUND. And certainly for many years, 4 gallons for £1, PLUS change!
What happened? Did I get older or did the Lira Sterling get smaller? Well, I know it got heavier!
Will aviation types now live nearer their home stations? Or is the gas still greener on the other side? Will we care? ...eh?
1st Jun 2004, 17:06
The biggest con was swapping over from selling petrol in Gallons to flogging it in Litres, I remember when it used to go up a penny a gallon,now its a penny on a Litre, thats errr,about 4 1/2p p on a Gallon.
...and folks over here are whinging about it being over $2 a gallon. I remember it used to be 80 cents a gallon....ah kids today, they don't know they're born...:E
1st Jun 2004, 17:51
I only go back to three-point-something gallons to the pound.
A twelve fold increase in thirty five years of motoring. Where do the government dream up their inflation indices? As it is mainly tax that might explain much.
However, anybody planning to drive less? Me neither!
1st Jun 2004, 17:56
Aways puzzled me as to why we in the UK pay more for our petrol than any other country on the face of this globe, yet we had all that North Sea Oil.
1st Jun 2004, 18:04
I was told that North Sea oil cannot be refined sufficiently to make petrol. Not sure if that is true or not.
Aways puzzled me as to why we in the UK pay more for our petrol than any other country on the face of this globe
Except for Holland apparently. The only other country that I visit regularly pays even more for petrol than here!
That's another addition to the 'cons' side of the equation which I forgot about before marrying the Dutch Mrs DeepC.
1st Jun 2004, 18:25
North Sea Oil is reasonably high grade and might not be ideal for petrol production, however it's tradeable so amounts to the same thing.
Not forgetting that the Government owns the oil anyway so a high price is good for Gordon without further tax hikes
1st Jun 2004, 19:13
The Germans managed to make fuel oil out of turnip tops during the war,we should have went all out for alternate fuels when they turned the oil off in the seventies but as per usual we did feck all, had we done so the middle east would be a forgoten backwater now, we could have allowed it to dry up and blow away.
1st Jun 2004, 19:20
I hate to say he's right, but the man is right. (just this once)
1st Jun 2004, 19:34
Forget 5 lbs a gallon. Over here they're selling it by the arm and leg.
1st Jun 2004, 19:41
In real, inflation-corrected, money road fuel is not all that dear. Compared with general prosperity, it is pretty cheap. If you don't believe me, just look at the 04 registered cars on your next journey. 15mpg behemoths are everywhere.
The way that we are pi**ing away our fossil fuel is ridiculous.
If you want real waste, just look at aviation. 3-day shopping trips from the UK to Boston, Mass. at a few hundred quid. Look at the fuel burn on a (say) full 767 for the roundtrip. Many tonnes of fuel, all tax free.
Uncle Raptor promises that before half a generation has passed (so I am talking about 15 years) aviation fuel will be taxed, and taxed heavily.
If we don't take energy use seriously - and we probably won't - our grandchildren may have to re learn the art of riding a bicycle.
1st Jun 2004, 20:34
When I first started driving I'm pretty sure that it was around 30p per gallon.
Mind you I was earning about £15 per week! Then I moved into aviation in 1976 and my first weekly pay packet was £27.50.
Yup prices have gone up since some of us were lads and lasses, but so have pay levels.
Any idiot can harp back to the past when bread, milk, etc were ridiculously cheap compared to today, but how about keeping a sense of proportion and remembering the pittance we took home in those days compared to today.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Jun 2004, 21:06
UR is right. We moan about the price of fuel while p*ssing the stuff away 'cause it's so cheap. Motoring is far cheaper in real terms than it was years ago. And the way we waste this limited resource on uneccessary airline flying at give-away prices ('cause there's no tax on it) is obscene.
That's why the environment is getting fecked up.
It can't and won't last, and while it's so available and cheap there is no incentive to develop more sustainable alternatives.
Now, if you want something to rant about that really has risen dramatically in price in real terms, look at yer pint of bitter......
In real, inflation-corrected, money ?
Compared with general prosperity ?
What ever high-fallutin words you use, gas is expensive in Britain. You can pretend it isn't by comparing it with price and incomes in the UK 10, 20 or 30 years ago because Brits have always had to pay too much. The only real comparison is with prices in other countries.
I read your Lord Chancellor Brown blaming the Arab world and trying to get them to keep the price increases to a minimum. What hyprocritical crap. Oil is cheap. The only reason gas is so expensive in Britain is because of tax.
If you guys spend say £30 on fuel, you only get about £4 of fuel. The rest is tax.
Allowing for the difference between Imp and US gals, Brits have to pay about $9 a gallon!! :eek:
1st Jun 2004, 22:29
We all often forget to take account of inflation, just think of the 'low' price of our first house, and how hard it was to pay the mortgage in the first year or two.
Just heard on Newnight (I think) that :
oil today $30 - $40 a barrel
oil in 1970's oil crisis (adjusted for inflation) - $100 a barrel.
Nowhere near as bad (yet).
If oil becomes that expensive again, resources which are difficult to get at, become cost effective to get at. (The price rise in the 1970's was one of the reasons North Sea Oil was exploited, it became cost effective.)
It was suggested that more Russian oil will be available if the price rises, as the resource become financially viable.
Does the cost of oil take into account the cost to the environment, to other people AND our children's future demand for oil?
No, not even in the UK.
Myself, I cannot understand why we aren't spending money finding alternative to oil. Demand from China, and to some extent India, is also pushing up the cost of oil. This won't go away, no matter what happens in the Middle East.
Well yes, we do a pay a lot more for our fuel, but we get our health care and other benefits paid for by taxes, etc. You win some, you lose some.
It also means that our cars are more fuel efficient and so have less affect on third parties.
1st Jun 2004, 22:41
Don't foget that another of Brown's 'stealth taxes' kicks in shortly on petrol.
2nd Jun 2004, 00:13
If oil hits a hundred bucks a barrel the Athabaska Tar Sands become economically viable. I'm ordering myself a camel and a burnoose.
Fresh water is said to be the next valuable resource. Make that two camels and two berneece.
PIGBOAT, do you mean ATHABASCA?
And is that BERNICE of the BARBOUR FOUNDATION?
2nd Jun 2004, 01:20
That's the one!
And Burnoose of the Berber foundation.;)
2nd Jun 2004, 05:34
The cost of getting oil out of the ground and turning it into petrol hasn't gone up at all recently. I believe it still works out at about 20 pence per litre.
The price rises being quoted for the barrel are those on the Futures market, so the price rises are caused by a bunch of very rich stockbrokers gambling on future prices. This is a self-inflicted injury by the west.
2nd Jun 2004, 06:38
Ali Barber is absolutely correct. A few people eager to make a fast buck are responsible for these high prices.
It seems any excuse, no matter how obscure, to raise prices of most goods and raw materials, is now the daily norm.
2nd Jun 2004, 08:02
I respect the US attempts to persuade Opec oil ministers to act to lower the cost of oil when they meet in Beirut tomorrow, but Chancellor Gordon Brown's much-publicised "personal appeals" to Opec countries are absurd.
Brown's office has made it known to the Press that he's been telephoning oil ministers trying to persuade them to increase production to prevent the price rise, no doubt in the hope that voters will think he's a good chap. Perhaps they hope this will distract attention from Brown's own plan to increase fuel duty by 2p per litre in the autumn.
Brown says higher fuel prices don't help producing or consuming countries. True. But this comes from the Chancellor of the country which has probably the highest fuel prices in the world - virtually all of it tax. :rolleyes:
Not only are we obliged to pay obscene prices when we put fuel in our own cars, but the absurd cost of fuel is a major factor in the high prices we pay for eveything else.
I haven't forgotten inflation; I don't interpret it in the same way as you.
2nd Jun 2004, 08:07
Current NYMEX spot price for unleaded gasoline is 130 cents/US gall = 34.3 cents/litre = 20 pence/litre
That's up from 112 c/gall (=17 p/l) in January
Ethanol is currently 170 c/gall (=26 p/l) but the Brazilians make it (from renewable sugar cane ) for about 18 p/l so they should be happy. Buy sugar before prices rise!
Alternatively the Americans can make ethanol from maize for about the same price. Gasoline can be blended with up to 20% ethanol before standard cars notice any difference.
I always wonder about hydrogen powered cars, fuel cells etc. What are we going to burn to make the power to make the hydrogen?
2nd Jun 2004, 11:05
Unwell_Raptor sorry mate but I can’t let you get away with your pop at airliners. I hate doing this sort of thing because my feeble brain usually messes up and embarrasses me. :O But some one has to have a go.
The 767 burns 10000kg in the first hour of flight. That figure reduces to around 6000kg in the cruise and reduces still further as weight and optimum cruise levels are attained, we’ll do a typical flight from LGW to MCO.
The distance is 4350 statute miles or 3780 NM. The flight time will take around 8hrs. So 10,000kg plus seven hours at 6000kg per hour gives a burn of 52000kg.
So 52000 divide by .792 (the normal SG) gives 65656 litres divide by 4.55 returns a total of 14,429 IMP gals. We have on board 358 pax and crew plus baggage.
That means for every mile we travel we burn 3.3 gals.
Now look at a small family car that normally seats 4 adults and returns 30mpg, the figures are surprising.
Since our family is carrying luggage…and from my experience a lot, that means the rear seats are occupied by two Samsonite cases (for two weeks sun) and the small boot is full of carry-on luggage that everyone seems to need these days. So we now have room for two adults and their eco friendly car returns say 30 mpg with the extra weight that this holiday entails. So 4350 miles divide by 30 gives 145 gals to transport just two adults the same distance. So to move 358 pax and crew we divide 358 by two adults and get 179. So our family car will use 179x145 gals to move the same number of pax and crew plus luggage. That is 25,955 gals. So the family car is not quite as impressive as first appears.
I’m sure the bright sparks among you will pick this post to pieces but like I said…someone had to have a go. :D
PS All errors are intentional;)
2nd Jun 2004, 11:31
I wasn't comparing a 767 with a car, or with anything else. What I was saying is that to burn , by your figures, 104 tonnes of irreplaceable fossil fuel so that 300 people can go shopping for three days is not a sensible use of a scarce resource. That also suggests to me that aviation fuel is too cheap.
Over dependence on oil is one of the greatest threats to the Western way of life. Without that we wouldn't give a toss what is happening in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, because we wouldn't need to. As it is, if it all goes wrong we will be forced to fight for our fuel supplies.
I just want to see us treating fossil fuel with a little more respect, for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
2nd Jun 2004, 11:32
Ok...let's leave the number crunching for a minute.
Can someone please explain the logic behind having 700m barrels of oil in reserve (guess who? yes....America) and the reluctance of wanting to release a few million so the Americans can shut up about the oil prices and the prices at the petrol pump when they go to fill up their disgustingly ineffiecent cars? No, didn't think so.
Oil prices are high for a multitude of reasons. Yes, they are high, but in the UK we pander to the Treasury's commands of paying more in tax than the cost of the actual fuel. For every 85p a litre, 60p goes to Mr. Gordon Brown in the form of tax. Why do us Brits put up with this? Answer: because we're reserved people and are scared to stand up for ourselves. In many other countries, there would be rioting at such ridiculous demands on our pockets.
OK. Us brits, fat and dumb will carry on paying the price.
What about the poor, who donkey years ago were kept alive eating fish 'n chips when it was cheap. YES it was!
Are THEY all going to buy old diesels and run them on old veg oil from them chip shops?
Well! Are you?.........
2nd Jun 2004, 12:35
Well not all of us are fat and dumb. If you want to pay, then pay. Don't complain!
2nd Jun 2004, 12:37
U-R, ok so what do we use fossil fuel for? Who decides what it can be used for and when? I don’t know of many cars that run on kerosene do you?
We have no one but ourselves to blame for being held to ransom by oil producing countries. As Tony D pointed out we should have pulled our collective thumbs out years ago and found a clean sustainable alternative. The oil companies plead innocence in the price hike but they have (as I understand it) suppressed alternative fuel technology for years. That we the voters have never made alternative fuel an election issue is our fault. I agree 100% with you about the future crises for our children. But we need to do something and that doesn’t mean ration fossil fuel, it means find an alternative.
This government takes something like 60 pence per litre as tax on every petrol transaction in the UK. I would suggest that Gordon Brown slashes at least 7p of that to maintain the price at 79p a litre or so. Then how about spending some of the taxes taken on fuel and ploughing it into looking for a viable alternative fuel. At the moment all I see is the green lobbyists pushing for higher fuel taxes despite no alternative fuels being widely available or a reliable, regular, safe and clean integrated public transport system.
So that’s three things the government could be doing, instead they are to busy finding wars to fight…but at least we the tax payer get to fund it.
2nd Jun 2004, 13:01
I managed to fill up on diesel for 73.8 centemos per litre today at a back street station. BP have hiked the price on their forecourts to 78.8.
Seems like a spot of profiteering taking place!:mad:
For you in the UK, that's about 50p per litre. The lowest it has been in the last twelve months was 65.5 cents....44.8p per litre.
There is only one place to put the blame for your high fuel prices in the UK...............The Government in the shape of Mr Brown. He must produce more methane on a daily basis than 100 wells!
2nd Jun 2004, 13:56
Since when should prices be set by government diktat? It's especially amusing to see how many right-wing people who are meant to believe in free markets moan when their own privileges are affected. I wonder if anyone else has noticed that most of the European countries whose petrol prices are lower have far higher income tax rates? Oil prices are high because demand is up and supply isn't - it is quite insane to believe that the best solution to this is to cut fuel duty in order to get down the pump price, because this will only increase demand! I assume that, once the price goes up again in response to higher demand, another tax cut will be demanded, and another, and another, until we end up with petrol prices far higher but zero taxed and a whopping budget deficit....is this sensible?
Quite apart from the long term, all it takes is a few bags of fertiliser in about five places around Saudi Arabia and they could be off line for two years. But that will all be Gordon's fault too, I suppose. It was only a few years ago that car manufacturers were advertising their latest models' fuel consumption figures. These days they can't be far off advertising how HIGH they are. What is the explanation for the sudden craze for monster cars?
2nd Jun 2004, 14:20
The government’s 60p a litre tax on fuel does affect the price we pay. In fact it’s by far the majority of the price we pay. The demand is up and OPEC controls the price of fossil fuels by artificially restricting the production.
My use of a car is because I can’t get to work on public transport. There simply isn’t any choice. If it cost me £1000 a litre I’d still have to buy it to get to work. That would mean my pay claim would reflect this and my salary would go up. The company would then pass on the cost to the customer and if the customer refused to buy tickets then the company would go bankrupt. I would be out of a job and would no longer need to buy petrol. But instead of paying huge sums of money in taxes to the treasury, I would be unemployed and claiming benefit. You choose...what’s better for the economy?
2nd Jun 2004, 14:29
What is the fuel burn of a half empty 767?
What is the fuel burn of a 767 with only crew onboard?
Why do u have to use your car to get to work?
2nd Jun 2004, 15:23
BHR I don’t know from memory the figures for empty or half load fuel burns on the B767.
The figures I gave were pessimistic by design. We usually work on 80-85kg per min fuel burn in the cruise but that’s only a rule of thumb. I also didn’t factor in the freight we carry on most flights.
I use a car because when I get a phone call at 0120 or 0300 any other time within the 24 hrs 365 days a year that I can be required to work at 30 minutes notice I cannot afford to say to the company sorry the trains/buses don’t run at this time of the day, or I can be at work in 3 hours if that helps. In an ideal world I would live within walking distance of the airfield. Also the government would diligently spend the green tax raised on fuel for saving the environment. Like for instance finding an eco friendly alternative fuel. But then that would mean when they found an alternative they would lose all that lovely tax revenue… and that just wouldn’t do. So like 99.9% (probably) of the population in the UK, I don’t live within walking distance of work.
2nd Jun 2004, 15:30
"I don’t live within walking distance of work."
2nd Jun 2004, 15:58
Now you mention it…no I couldn’t :(
2nd Jun 2004, 16:32
max_cont, why not?
I usually try to be in walking distance of where I work. Also trains/busses are not the only forms of public transport.
That's all well and good but living near where you work isn't always an option.
The big shafting in all this is 75p in the £ goes to the Govt.
HOW CAN THIS BE ALLOWED !!!!!!!!
In the process of changing the car over to LPG. Whilst it'd take about a year to recuperate the cost, the principle itself is the main driving factor in my case.
Britain still a great country is it ?:rolleyes:
2nd Jun 2004, 21:12
under_exposed, well done…you’re an inspiration to us all.
Now when you’ve got the other points I raised sorted out, come back to me and we’ll sort out where I live. Mind you, I want to see proof that the tax raised on fuel is being spent on ecological conservation...like an alternative fuel source. I also want to see a decent, safe public transport system.
PS I won’t be holding my breath.
3rd Jun 2004, 07:41
You are taking the easy way out and passing the buck to someone else. What have you done to ease your reliance on petrol?
3rd Jun 2004, 07:49
Arr, 'tis all bollix, so it is, and folk be a fallin' for it, so they do.
But this time, if they're not careful, the Seven Sisters and their "allies" might just shoot themselves in the foot; if they're just a little bit TOO greedy, this internet thingy might get the better of them, and people might just start using ethanol, hydrogen, and Pouge's carburettor, in large numbers. And once the genie is out of the bottle, it may prove very hard to put back.
In '73, when oil first went to US$23 a barrel, the cost of getting it out of the ground, and through the refinery, was seven cents per barrel.
We leave about 80% of all oil deposits untouched. This is the stuff which requires pumping, and doesn't come out under it's own pressure. Pumping isn't very expensive, but it isn't free, and oil companies don't like parting with money.
Hydrogen can be made from seawater, using solar-sourced electricity, for almost nothing. Yes, we have to pay for photovoltaic cells and metal hydride containment systems and blah blah blah, but we have to pay for rigs and refineries and tankers and so forth now, so so what?
And the Diesel engine was designed and built to run on vegetable oil. Specifically, peanut oil, later suplemented with rapeseed oil (nowadays known as Canola). That was in 1894. Mineral-oil derived Diesel engine fuel wasn't developed until 1913.
Tax, profit, and lies, people.
(waits for ORAC's inevitable pseudo-scientific pro establishment rant....:hmm: )
3rd Jun 2004, 08:41
BHR rubbish, I’m not taking the easy way out at all. I’m making lifestyle choices just like everyone else.
It’s easy to base arguments on what should happen in an ideal world…we don’t live there, so those arguments are irrelevant.
I have to arrange my transportation using available technologies. The internal combustion engine is the technology on offer. Show me an affordable hydrogen powered car and I’ll buy it tomorrow.
The argument for a green tax is that it would be good for the environment to get people out of fossil fuelled vehicles. That would be true if it forced people out of the car into public transport. The flaws in that argument are that we don’t have public transport worthy of the name and no tax revenue is spent researching alternative fuels. So in reality it’s just another tax.
However for arguments sake, where should I live? I work out of LGW, LTN, STN, BHX, MAN, LPL, LBA, EMA, BRS, SOU, BOH GLA NCL, MME and CWL. Take for instance today. Tonight I’m packing my bags and I will spend 5 days working out of CWL. I need one flight bag plus a suitcase. I could drive to LGW and get the company provided transport that will consist of a large comfortable car that returns around 20mpg. Instead I will save on the journey to LGW and the unavoidable retracing of my steps and drive myself directly to CWL in a car that returns 31mpg. If I didn’t need a suitcase I’d ride my motorcycle. That gives me 50mpg. That of course ignores the extra risk I take by sharing the same roads as the mobile chimps…collectively known as car drivers who spectacularly fail to anticipate, plan and observe while driving.
So I believe I do my bit for the environment, including risking my life on a motorcycle. As an individual with no power I can only do so much. However if you and the rest of the electorate want to elect me as your ruler, I will gladly make the hard decisions for you all. Your call.
3rd Jun 2004, 08:53
What is it you do for a living that means you need to work out of almost every airport on the island?
3rd Jun 2004, 09:18
I fly aeroplanes for a very large company that couldn’t organise a p**s-up in a brewery.
The amount of time crews spend in crew transport is mind blowing. Take for instance last summer; I spent two roster months straight, working out of MAN, BHX and NCL. Basing policy? …Ha, don’t make me laugh. I’ve had in excess of ten duty changes given to me in one day…for the same duty!
Of course all this inefficiency costs big bucks and guess who gets to pay for it in the end?
3rd Jun 2004, 09:56
I really dont understand why people whinge so much about fuel tax in the UK.
The country needs a certain amount of taxation revenue for roads/schools/hospitals etc etc. This money comes from taxation.
If fuel taxes were reduced to say US levels, income tax and/or VAT would have to rise significantly - we'd be no better off.
The reduced cost of petrol would then lead to even more gas-guzzlers on the roads, and probably more miles driven, making our already congested roads intolerable. If this reduced tax policy was adopted througout Europe, oil demand would exceed supply, and prices would rocket.
In my view, the world (and particularly the USA) needs an immediate increase in fuel taxation to keep demand at sustainable levels, and also prolong oil reserves.
By the way, contrary to an earlier opinion, you can't blame the futures traders for the high price of oil. Oil futures are currently trading at significantly lower price than spot cargoes. Oil pricing is highly complex, but like any commodity, essentially depends on supply and demand. The current high price is due to demand equalling or being slightly higher than supply, coupled with low world-wide oil stocks, and a weak dollar.
3rd Jun 2004, 10:18
Next time you plan to be in the GLA area give me a PM and I will stand you a beer at a local hostelry.
3rd Jun 2004, 10:27
BHR, splendid idea…you’re on.:ok:
Shaggy Sheep Driver
3rd Jun 2004, 10:36
max_cont puts his finger on a typical example of the relative cheapness of fuel leading to its being wasted. His airline (which he says 'can't organise a p*ss up in a brewry) might have to learn to be better organised in which crews it allocates to which airport if the costs of moving aircrew around the UK roads was a significant factor in their costings. They act like they do because, quite simply, they can!
The same goes for supermarkets that truck stuff all over the UK 'cause it's cheaper to do Just In Time deliveries straight to the shelf rather than stock non-perishables locally. Result; thousands of uneccessary truck journeys - because it's cheap! And while fuel's cheap, there is little incentive to develop viable alternative energy sources.
And what I've yet to hear in this debate is that if UK fuel tax was reduced, where would the shortfall in tax revenue come from? Higher VAT? Higher income tax? It would have to come from somewhere (unless you are arguing for lower taxation per se, but that is a different argument) - and would that be less painfull than high fuel tax?
3rd Jun 2004, 10:46
I am posting this when I have only read halfway through the thread, so if it somethig i mention has already been said I apologise.
Before I left the UK around 41/2 years ago I was doing really serious high mileage, so for comforts sake I had a BMW 735 - yes a gas guzzler. Cost me around 50 quid to fill the tank, often more than once a day. That hurt.
Since leaving, mainly for the reasons of high taxation and stupid government and all the other gripes to be found in various threads on this forum I have been in Dubai where there is no tax - at all, petrol, fill up your gas guzzler for a tenner, Taiwan where petrol is NT$19 a litre, about GBP 1.40 a gallon .and Philippines 19 pesos a litre - 84p a gallon.
Alternative fuels? Who remembers the everlasting light bulb? Invented many years ago, would put the likes of Philips Osram etc. out of business, so thay bought up the patents and buried them, not manufacturing the thing. I venture to suggest that is exactly what is going on with possible replacements for fossil fuels. Too many vested interests and infrastructure in place.
Finally, people, why moan in the UK, you are all old enough to realise that nothing - especially taxes - in UK ever reduces, nothing you do will ever reverse it. Vote with your feet and leave, go to where life is good and living is cheap. The third world countries are not so very different from UK - potholes in the roads, dogsh*t on the pavements, rude people and of course nice people too. But without all that tax. Your dollar, euro, pound goes so much further.
Rant over, but I will finally add I am a fiercely patriotic Brit, it is just not the same country I was dragged up in. Big Brother is watching you!
3rd Jun 2004, 11:31
SSD, yes there would be a tax shortfall…but only on what the present tax level is. Maybe the government should start to make cutbacks themselves…you know, like spending less of our money on fighting the odd war here and there.
You’re right in that the company that employs me should be more efficient. But I believe it’s a fundamental mistake to assume that they pay for the fuel burned. They don’t, the customer does. That’s you and anyone who travels on our aircraft. I do the same to the company each year in my pay claim. If it costs me more in fuel bills to work, I charge the company more for my labour who in turn pass it on to you the customer. So to my way of thinking fuel tax won’t achieve the desired results in the present form. That of course ignores the fact that the stated aim is a lie.
It would be more efficient to reduce all our bases to maybe three, but then the customers would in all likelihood travel by car to get to the aircraft from wherever they live. 348 people making their way in cars burns a lot more fuel than if the crew travels to the customer. The small bases are manned…but it’s uneconomical to man to peak summer levels. It makes more sense to man at the winter requirement and crew flights from the larger bases as needed in the summer.
10th Jun 2004, 16:46
Noted on news today, that supermarkets and major suppliers in UK are to cut up to 2p off a litre for you lucky people.
Yet again they are misleading and ripping the Uk consumer off. They are only eventually passing on a reduction in the price of a barrell of oil on world markets.
The prices in Spain have been falling all week at the forecourts. Already prices have come down between 2 and 4 cents a litre, without a big song and dance. They are expected to drop further over the coming week.