🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:27:26 -0400, Michael John Tantillo
<mjt7@duke.edu> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, JohnDoe wrote:
>
>> On 31 May 2002 11:45:11 -0700, beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >You seem to have had no negative results from full-serve mandates,
>> >while I have had the opposite.  So again, I ask - why can't there be
>> >BOTH kinds of service?  Full AND self-serve, and each person does what
>> >makes them most happy?
>>
>> because wherever self serv is, full serve costs 15-25 cents more per
>> gallon
>>
>Thats right, because you have to pay for the attendant to pump the gas
>(labor cost) whereas with self-serve, you do the labor.
>
>Its ALWAYS like that though....even where they don't offer self
>serve....even in New Jersey.  You just don't see that self-serve is 15-25
>cents cheaper because THEY DON"T SELL IT!!  Trust me, you are still paying
>MORE for the full serve than you would be for self serve no matter where
>you are.  

Well, no, we don't trust you on this - experience here is different.

There may be some hidden savings you don't know about.  How about:

1) Far fewer drive-offs without paying at a full serve.

2) Overall less labor when you don't need several cash register
operators in the associated food store to handle all the gas paying
duties - the gas pump guy simply collects the money on the spot.

There's something going on here - but I do know that my experience is
that when there is full serve and self serve in the same town
(Indianapolis), the full serve gas is cheaper.  Just not sure why.

And no, there's nobody going to convince me that the full serve
station just coincidentally happens to be the same people that have
figured out a new and innovative way to doctor the gas so it is so
cheap that it not only absorbs higher labor costs but also is so much
cheaper that the gas turns out to be cheaper too.  Naw - something
else is at work here.

Dave Head