Not a nostalgic person but
As awesome and epic as that opening screen was... after I watched a good opening scene a few times I would generally just skip it whenever possible.
First, most customers choosing self-serve when they can, means they perceive the attendants as negative added value (for whatever reason).
But this is irrelevant, because my proposal to eliminate self-serve is not about increasing perceived value of gas pump attendants, its about forcing stations to hire more workers.
Second, no one would be stopping gas station owners to offer self-serve pumps and attended pumps.
This is also missing the point. If self-serve is offered alongside full-service, the customers will generally choose self-serve. That is precisely why I propose eliminating self-serve... so that customers
can't choose it and stations are forced to hire more workers.
Third, when I was in Sicily last year, gas stations usually offered both and the price on the attended pumps was 10 cents/liter (or even more) higher than on the self-serve pumps.
That is generally the case... when self-serve is offered
alongside full-service, the full-service option costs more, but that isn't a valid comparison to what I am proposing, ie what happens in New Jersey, (ie NO self-serve option) for numerous reasons. Just to name a few... First, because my proposal isn't about
lowering cost, its about creating more jobs. I'm not saying we should eliminate self-serve because full-service is
cheaper, I'm saying we should eliminate self-serve, because mandating full-service will create more jobs. So if the cost goes up that's fine, you're still employing more people.
Second, the cost may be higher when you offer both simultaneously, because you are trying to incentivize people to do it themselves, so you don't have to hire as many attendants, while still giving
the option for people who don't want to (or are not able to) pump it themselves, and are willing to pay that premium. Also, you are also creating a class-based incentive... you make the people who are paying extra for full-service feel like they are better than those who pay less to do it themselves. This kind of marketing tactic is used all the time in all sorts of businesses, amusement parks, restaurants, etc. People will pay more to feel superior and get a feeling that they are getting a VIP/luxury experience that others can't afford.
Another issue, is that if you are offering both simultaneously, you still have to spend more to maintain the aesthetics of
all the pumps because customers are going to be getting out of their cars and looking at the condition of the pumps, even the full-service ones and paying more attention to the condition of the pumping area in general. If the pumping area is raggedy-looking it will reflect poorly on your business and potentially lose you customers, whereas if the customers don't even get out of their cars they will be less concerned with the condition of the station and you can spend less on maintaining the appearance, thus saving money. Anecdotally, I've found that stations that only offer full-service have less pumps, older pumps and are often in more run down condition, possibly because they don't have to worry as much about appearances.
Also, what used to be the case and may still be, in some places which offer both simultaneously, is that when you pay for full-service, you are technically entitled to more than just having your gas pumped for you. Sometimes "full-service" entitled you to a window cleaning, fluid (oil/transmission/windshield wiper) level check, tire pressure check etc., which would justify the higher cost. Sometimes the attendants would do it automatically, and sometimes you had to ask for it. Nowadays, at least in New Jersey, the attendants aren't bothering with any of that, and they aren't expected to. I have no idea how it works in Sicily, but when I was in mainland Italy, full-service meant you got extra services besides pumped gas, at least at the stations I visited.