Time again for a prophane fill up at my home in San Diego County, Caifornia. Called my dependable
Amerigas dealer in
San Marcos for a delivery date. Oh By the way I asked the
representive what are the prices today. She replied $3.69 gallon without hesitation. Now let me back up I have a cattle ranch in Missouri from where I was calling from. Here it's $2.12 period. No promotional
nada. Everyone pays about the same price. I told her that was
outrages for a company as big as
Amerigas to charge a price that high. She asked me for my account number for what reason I don't know why but I gave it to her. She left the line and came back with another offer of $3.49. I told her again way still to high. She noticed the frustration in my voice and said let me check one more time. Came back the third time $2.99. I thanked her and hung up.
My point is. Here in Missouri they don't decieve you to get your business. It's up front here's the price. I had to call around get the best price at a local dealer in the small community I live in which was $2.59. A promotion or whatever. I'll take it. As far as
Amerigas goes come get your tank. The people need to take a look at the price they pay for energy in California as compared to other states. Sure there's more enviromental and higher cost. But $1.50 more a gallon, and a spread of almost $1 in just the local area in California. Come on
Amerigas and the rest of the gougin dealers. Make a buck but not all at once. Tighten your bootstraps like everyone else. What's the problem. Do we all move to Missouri where energy is cheaper, and my property tax on my farm has declined consistantly for the last 10 years. Not to mention I can buy grocery for about half what I pay in California. Wake up Californians. Oh forgot to mention they raised my tank rental $15.
1. Written by info, on 10-03-2010 14:47
You could have prebought your fuel for 1.599 with Amerigas in July & August & saved yourself some grief........
|
|
Consumer Forum is another great place to discuss consumer concerns NOT RELATED to this article. |
Comment
Comments (1)
