The Class Action grinds on - click here for the full unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria on 8th June 2000.

I am writing to you about the current avgas crisis. I urge you to think of the long term, and exercise some restraint.

Australia has 3 avgas suppliers. The basic fact is that we need those avgas suppliers far more than they need us. There are three main refined oil products sold in Australia - motor fuel, diesel, and jet fuel. They account for the lion's share of sales. Then there are the oddities, such as lighter fluid and avgas, which produce negligible revenue and negligible profit.

Suddenly we find AOPA at war with one of the 3 avgas suppliers, Mobil. AOPA is exhorting us not to accept any offers from Mobil but to start lawyering instead. That would be a rational position for the Law Society to take, but it is not a rational position for AOPA to take. If large-scale lawyering starts, it will cost Mobil a fortune - of which 90% will go to the lawyers.

The long-term result of this crisis is going to be an increase in the price of avgas. We will end up paying much more in higher avgas charges than Mobil pays out. The price of avgas will rise for the following reasons:

1. Mobil may well decide to withdraw from the market entirely. The reduction in competition will naturally drive prices up.

2. All avgas suppliers will perceive a greater risk from supplying avgas. They will therefore look for a higher return from the activity in order to compensate for the higher risk. If they are insured against this risk, they will of course face enormously increased premiums.

In my opinion, AOPA should not be leading a public charge against Mobil. We need Mobil far more than Mobil needs us. AOPA should instead be attempting to act as honest broker, to ensure that all our members' genuine losses are met without the involvement of lawyers. WE should also attempt to identify the opportunists who are trying to get other work done at Mobil's expense, and persuade them to lower their sights. Only in the most unlikely event that we failed in that should we threaten legal action. And if we did eventually have to threaten legal action that should be done privately, not publicly. The present very public campaign will have the certain effect of making everyone involved in the avgas business much more nervous about their future liability.

If AOPA were acting as honest broker trying to keep costs down whilst getting a fair result for its members, the avgas suppliers would find this whole thing far less threatening and therefore it would be less costly for us in the long term.

It is easy to understand why AOPA is acting more like a lawyers' lobby group than a pilots' lobby group. Four members of our Committee describe themselves as lawyers. What's more, only two of those were elected. One, Chris McKeown, stood for election and was thoroughly rejected by the members. He was then co-opted onto the Committee. Another, Dan Tyler, has never stood for election, but was simply co-opted. And one of the two who WERE elected one, Tony Mitchell, was declared elected after receiving far fewer votes than Mike Kalinowski, a non-lawyer. This avgas disaster is a direct outcome of the undemocratic way in which AOPA is being run.

AOPA has had failure piled upon failure for the past 12 months. Almost a year ago, Tony Mitchell met the Minister for Transport on our behalf. It must have been one of the worst meetings any lobby group has ever had, because 12 months later we have not got even one of the things we asked for.

But for some reason AOPA decided to publish a transcript of that meeting on the Internet. It's no surprise that AOPA has not been able to get in to see the Minister since then.

Our Committee appears to have decided that the way back into the Minister's office is to be quiet as lambs and complain about nothing. Therefore we have seen the tax start to go back on avgas. We have seen two private pilots on the Board of CASA replaced by two ex-airline employees, neither of them a pilot. And not a squeak has come from AOPA. Nor has there been a squeak from AOPA against CASA.

But now AOPA is publicly threatening Mobil in a way AOPA has not dared to threaten the Minister or CASA. The idea is to show AOPA's members that AOPA is still strong and assertive. In fact the result will be to take money from our members' pockets and put it in lawyers' pockets.

I urge every member of AOPA to try to reach a satisfactory settlement with Mobil before taking up AOPA's offer of litigation. If you do decide to choose litigation, demand that your lawyer guarantee that you will receive at least the amount of Mobil's offer to you after all legal fees and other expenses of litigation have been deducted.

If you have another e-mail address which is better for you, or if you wish to unsubscribe, we invite you to go to http://www.apump.com/cgi-bin/emaillist.asp