und UL91 is 10 EuroCents per liter in favour of UL91. Total expects that differential, currently ca. 4%, to increase once UL91 sells in higher volumes and also the logistics improve.
Oh really? I purchase both 100LL and UL91 and find that the opposite is the reality. The problem as I see it is that most owners will go for the cheapest fuel on the day. This presents the airfields with a conundrum as holding large stocks of both types doesn't make sense.
Isn't Mogas lower taxed than UL91?
For Germany I don't think that is true. § 2 Energiesteuergesetz (energy tax law) says that the tax on unleaded gasoline is 669,80 € per 100l and 721 € per 100l for leaded gasoline. The law references the combined nomenclature of the EU which is a bit hard to lookup but the numbers reference seem to refer to unleaded versus leaded and not the octane rating.
I don't understand TOTAL's game at all.
There are a lot of places where the only gasoline fuel available is AVGAS 100LL. There, offering UL91 in addition to AVGAS could be seen as a plus. Rotax engines don't like AVGAS. In places with Mogas today, I don't see much value in offering UL91. Another possible angle is that Total want to be a supplier of Mogas which is typically sourced independently today so they use the "certified" argument. Total want to take over airport fuel stations and probably have a hard time bidding for stations that offer Mogas today. With UL91 they can win the tender.
There are a lot of places where the only gasoline fuel available is AVGAS 100LL.
Isn't that true for at least 99% of European airports that offer any gasoline?
There, offering UL91 in addition to AVGAS could be seen as a plus. Rotax engines don't like AVGAS.
I did wonder about that... Rotax owners is one population which would prefer UL91; are there others? But presumably Rotax owners will go for UL91 only if it is actually cheaper than 100LL. If UL91 was more expensive, how much extra would they pay for the extended service intervals?
Total want to take over airport fuel stations and probably have a hard time bidding for stations that offer Mogas today. With UL91 they can win the tender.
I don't get that, because any airfield that drops 100LL is going to lose a lot of high value business immediately.
That is a really basic thing in all this and I think TOTAL simply did not realise that.
Obviously any airfield which does not have any business with the "must have 100LL" crowd could easily drop 100LL and just carry UL91, but e.g. most aerobatic types need 100LL and they can work from almost no runway at all, and indeed they are often based at very short grass strips.
So there is either a very clever tactic buried in there somewhere, or TOTAL completely screwed up their market research.
I reckon it is the latter, and hopefully their "marketing manager" is reading this and having a good laugh at the bandwidth we are wasting wondering what his Grand Plan was 
Had they come in at say €0.50/litre under 100LL then I would be very worried because it would lead to the loss of 100LL at many places and the subsequent wholesale screwing of the "upper bit" of GA. Airports are mostly not interested in supporting aviation; they are ruled by accountants. If we see an airport going for £100+ mandatory handling for 2500kg+ (which results in a near total loss of that business, as one might expect - like my local one) then anything is possible. But there is no indication TOTAL (or anyone else) are capable of such a discount.
Another factor in dropping 100LL is that you are now tied to a single supplier who can jack the price up and place you (the airport) in an uncompetitive situation. 100LL has multiple sources.
I don't get that, because any airfield that drops 100LL is going to lose a lot of high value business immediately.
I was talking about the airfields offering 3 types of fuel today. Our airfield offers Jet, 100LL and Mogas. Suppose Total was bidding to take over the fuel station (which is their strategy). Previously they would have no chance because they could not supply Mogas. Now they switch the station to Jet, 100LL and UL91. Typically Total come in when an airport's fuel station is in need of investment. Ours failed approval (TÜV) some years ago and it cost 150k€ to get it back in shape. A lot of airfields will not want to make that investment and just hand it over to Total.
But presumably Rotax owners will go for UL91 only if it is actually cheaper than 100LL.
I think the turbo Rotax 914 is not supposed to run on 100LL which is why it is rare and also Tecnam did not use it for the P2006T.
This can be really rather simple. The majority of my customers can now use either UL91 or 100LL; they will buy the cheapest fuel available. (That said, there is some long term merit in using UL91 as the plugs and valves seems to fair better).
My problem is that I use supplier X for 100LL and supplier Y for UL91. I do not wish to hold large stocks of both fuels as the more expensive stuff will just sit dormant (the UL91 with a 6-month shelf life). Consequently, I would like a clear indication that one particular fuel will always be significantly cheaper than the other thus allowing me to hold minimal stocks of the more expensive stuff. Alternatively, I will be playing the markets each month which would not be good for the customers as they will constantly be switching fuel types and therefore engine oils.
PS. The P2006T most certainly has used 100LL - not least in the two years it was based at Booker.
PS. The P2006T most certainly has used 100LL - not least in the two years it was based at Booker.
Yes, because it uses the 912 Rotax and not the turbocharged 914 which would otherwise be a better choice for this underpowered aircraft.
Another issue with Mogas today is that you never know which ethanol content you get. The STC'ed Lycomings and Contis can only take up to 1% while the Rotax engines take up to 5%. UL91 is guaranteed to be free of ethanol. When the E10 stuff started, our airfield had some trouble with the ethanol content, it was up to 2% but since then it seems to have stabilized below 1% although there is no guarantee it will stay that way. The suppliers have figured out where to buy the fuel to get the lowest ethanol content. Apparently there is a pipeline from Rotterdam to Cologne which cannot take ethanol due to rubber bearings and it's from there they buy the fuel. Just a rumor I've heard.
they will buy the cheapest fuel available
How would you divide up your business, David?
I think flight training can mostly use UL91, but a lot of privately owned stuff cannot.
Re ethanol, FWIW, Socata permit up to 1% IPA for fuel icing protection purposes. Not sure if IPA has similar issues to ethanol in the fuel system component context.
Peter, right now I don't know. This morning we are completing a survey of based operators in order to get a rough breakdown of requirements. To be honest, I think the balance will be something like 80:20 in favour of UL91.
Once I get that figure straight, I need to attack my suppliers and try to understand where bulk purchase pricing will go as there is absolutely no point in stocking huge amounts of the more expensive stuff. If I can get a price match guarantee then that would be useful as I can then choose what to put in my fleet (about 60% of all AVGAS sales). I think I would probably go for the UL91 in this scenario as we have already seen that it is kinder to the Lycomings which run on it.
Other considerations are ease of supply (I can get 100LL with 24hrs), contract terms, support etc etc.
Finally, if UL91 does come in significantly cheaper I need to look at how I dirve my margins. We currently calculate these as a percentage on top of purchase price and this feeds the budget. Fuel is the main area where airfields have the opportunity to make profit (to offset all the losses :) ) and we need to carefully manage this revenue stream.
Interesting times.......
Having quickly done the maths, 65% of our private operators could use UL91, 25% are stuck with 100LL and 10% need Jet A1. If I combine these figures withour training fleet capability, the results are 73%, 20% and 7% receptively.
Now you need to factor in the average fuel purchase
It may not be such a wild guess to say that a TB20 (IO540-C4) with its 86.2 USG usable fuel may be one of the biggest reasonably common flying fuel tanks that can actually use 91UL (as of 24th April 2013). I have spent £400 quite a few times recently.
Most of the bigger stuff can't use 91UL.
