Vehicles Issued to CAP

[billford1]

I had a conversation with an AF Major recently at an AF monitored Sarex. We had a good exchange about what the AF issues to CAP. The Major observed that in our wing there was a noticable dropoff in the number of volunteers and participants. My observation was that the vehicles we get are the big Chevy Vans that get really bad gas mileage and how it works a hardship on CAP members who go out on SAR missions, SAREXs and other activities. If you have to pay $100 to gas up, and the reimbursement is delayed the CAP folks I know can't absorb that. My observation is that CAP should look at 6 passenger AWD minivans. On Activities there should be a CAP credit card at a designated gas station. It seems that the cost of the new Cessna 182 G1000 A/C is drinking up a lot of the budjet even while the aircrews pay to fly.

[RiverAux]

I don't think the AF "issues" us vehicles any more than they issue us airplanes.  I believe they're bought on the open market by CAP the corporation.  However, you are right that the Wing that do not put credit cards in the vehicles or airplanes are definetely putting themselves at a disadvantage in that people do not want to get themselves too deep in a financial hole waiting for reimbursement for stuff that CAP should be paying for directly. 

[arajca]

CAP purchases vehicles using programmed funds from our grant from the AF.

I don't know the details of the purchase process or the prices, I wonder if getting Ford or Chevrolet to become the "Official Vehicle of Civil Air Patrol" would have some cost reduction. I know the resort company I work at gets a $5K to $7K discount of vehicles from Ford and we're not purchasing hundreds, merely 35 to 50 per year for five resorts in CO and CA. They're also work vehicles, not luxury vehicles (the only add-on is a cd player w/ mp3 player jack). Chevy gave us a similar deal before Ford.

[mikeylikey]

$2.95 (average 2 years ago) x 15 gallons =$44.25

$3.95 (todays average) x 15 gallons =$59.25

$59.25 - $44.25 = $15.00

So if you fill up once per week, that would be 53 x $59.25 = $3,140.25 for todays averages

If you filled up once per week with averages from 2 years ago that would be 53 x $44.25 = $2,345.25

$3,140.25 - $2,345.25 = $795.00 difference. 

We are speaking of pennies here.  I have to say if we are losing people because of GAS prices, it was most likely something OTHER than gas prices. 

(NOTE....Mikey's math used 53 weeks per average, as it produced an even decimal, while there are only 52.365 weeks in a year)

NOW......when Gasoline reaches $5.00 then we will start seeing a decline in membership.  It then becomes a significant difference between "gas prices then and now".  Well into over $3,000.00

As far as CAP getting Vans......perhaps we should follow the GSA model and start getting their deals on flex-fuel and hybrid cars.  Heck.....we can thank NHQ of 5 years ago for not signing with GSA to allow CAP to use the GSA fleet for AFAM, Encampments and other AF approved activities.  That would have helped all of us today.  Don't believe me.....call NHQ and ask to speak to the LGT office, then ask one of the two employees who offered the GSA contract and which legal guru NHQ employee declined it.

Anyway......if you think gas is bad now.....and you can no longer afford to volunteer because of it, wait till the gas price overtakes the minimum wage in this country.  It will be a real big wake up call, and we will all suffer for it.  Think milk is expensive now, wait till you can't afford it.  Think your plastic IPOD cost a lot......wait till you can't afford it.  Think all of our disposable plastic products will always be around.......recycling will only get us so far, we will have a big shortage of things we take for granted now.  (Food, plastics, heating oil, natural gas and gasoline are all linked commodities, when oil goes up, we pay big on all fronts)

[DNall]

It costs me 88 bucks to fill up my truck today at 2.76/gal. That's getting pricey to be sure. I do think it limits some mission participation. Probably not the normal stuff, but a long distance or multi-day mission is going to be pressing, plus food & maybe lodging costs. That's money I'm otherwise putting away for that weekend away that I can't do now.

This is a bigger issue with planes. We've started putting fuel cards in those. It seems appropriate to do so for vans at some stage.

I know there were some issues with the GSA recommendation. I do think it's something that should be revisited. I also think it's appropriate to buy different vehicles, especially now that we're taking seats out of the ones we have.

[Eclipse]

$2.95 (average 2 years ago) x 15 gallons =$44.25

$3.95 (todays average) x 15 gallons =$59.25

$59.25 - $44.25 = $15.00

So if you fill up once per week, that would be 53 x $59.25 = $3,140.25 for todays averages

If you filled up once per week with averages from 2 years ago that would be 53 x $44.25 = $2,345.25

$3,140.25 - $2,345.25 = $795.00 difference. 

We are speaking of pennies here.  I have to say if we are losing people because of GAS prices, it was most likely something OTHER than gas prices.

Its about time this was said out loud!  I am so SICK of the whining about fuel prices.

[arajca]

The point was not about gas prices for their personal vehicles and routine travel to meetings. It was about dropping $50-$75 or more to fuel a CAP vehicle and waiting two, three, four months or more to get reimbursed. Routine travel is easily budgeted for. Some members I know set aside a "mission fund" to help offset some expenses, but can't keep filling it without getting something back in a timely manner.

Fortunately, I belong to a wing that has state fuel cards in every CAP vehicle. And also has a fast turn around on personal vehicle fuel reimbursement (typically within 10 days check is in my hands).

[RiverAux]

Exactly right arajca.  I certainly don't mind the fuel for getting myself to the meetings, etc., but if I had to pay for the gas for our airplanes or vans out of my own pocket and then wait for reimbursement, my enthusiasm for undertaking a lot of missions would drop quite a bit.  I've done it before and didn't like it much. 

[afgeo4]

Ok... gas here, in NYC is $4.15 for regular. Vans get approximately 10mpg mixed driving. That number drops significantly when driven full. The gas tank isn't 15 gallons. It's 25. A full tank isn't going to go far when loaded with 10 members and equipment and for a SAREX with a ground team mission we're looking at about $80-$100 expense for the driver. The policy of my wing is to allow at least 1 month for Wing to reimburse the member. Allow a couple of weeks for the paperwork and check to move up/down the command chain and members who drive are facing a rather large burden. If such member is also doing cadet program driving, it's really bad.

Now this isn't going to cause a drop-off in general membership, but it might cause a drop in cadet activities such as field trips, bivouacs and the likes. It could also drop your attendance at SAREXs, which I think is what the original poster meant.

I for one, was on the hook for $70 for months before I was reimbursed and I will not be driving a van outside of encampment anymore. That's unfortunate because I'm one of few people in my group who actually has a CAP driver's license and has had one consistently and who was very active with cadets and willing to drive wherever.

[arajca]

If you can't get a CAP or state fuel card for your unit's van/truck/whatever, and your unit can afford it, look into getting a unit credit card. They are permitted, you just need a policy describing how it can be used and who can use it. One of the authorized users is our on-duty GTL to cover misc. mission expenses like meals and batteries. We set limits on how much you can spend per member per meal.

Since I know someone will ask, here is out policy/OI for credit cards. We haven't followed through yet, but that's primarily due to a lack of time right now. Our OI has been approved by the wing/FM as required. The OI meets the requirements of CAPR 173-1.

[Frenchie]

The Texas wing provided fuel cards for the aircraft.  I have no idea if they did the same for the vans, but I don't see what would stop them.

Prior to the cards, our reimbursements happened pretty quickly, and they are even faster now due to the centralized banking system they now use.

I never had a problem with just getting reimbursed, but I can see why some people would and it's a legitimate concern.  They should have cards for all vehicles and aircraft so people are not being asked to front the organization money.

[DNall]

^ not for vans.

It's not an issue doing standards stuff, but if I take a GT to a mission & burn pretty much a full tank getting there, then operate for two days at a full tank plus a piece, then a full-tank coming home, that's $350-400. I like CAP & all, but I can't go laying that out at just any time w/o notice. Add meals for at least me, prob a couple broke cadets too... yeah it gets to be a problem.

I do think it's a valid concern that we're not driving the right kinds of vehicles. A 15pax w/ seats removed down to 12pax. Okay, I understand that. Now, why are we going to continue buying 15pax w/ the seats pre-removed in the future. Why not just go to 12pax. For that matter, are vans really the most appropriate vehicle for our ES mission. I understand we get them to do cadet programs transport & in that case one large van is better than two smaller SUVs. However, that's a low percentage of use for most vehicles. A mid-size economical SUV seems more appropriate, and there are hybrid models on the market now for reasonable prices.

That said, I would certainly agree that if members are walking away (and they are) then it's not cause of gas prices.

[sarflyer]

I was just talking about this with another member the other day.  We thought that CAP ought to look into leasing the fleet instead of buying.  The van assigned to my squadron is 15 years old and has 59,000 miles on it and it's not the oldest in our fleet. 

Because it sits for long periods of time it has more issues than a vehicle used every day.  An example was about 10 years ago my police department was going to lease patrol cars instead of buying 6 new cars every year.  We were going to issue cars to all patrol officers, that's 60 vehicles, as take home cars.  Pay for gas and insurance and maintence.  At the end of the lease, 3 years, the city could buy all 60 cars for $1.00.  And then lease 60 more.  Unfortunately politics crushed the deal.  Would have saved the city $100,000 over the course of the lease.

This might have already been discussed here but I don't see why CAP can't look into something like this.  Better vehicles out in the field and less ongoing maintenance costs. 

As far as a gas card in the vehicle, I think it's a great idea but I don't think they will go for it because of accountablity and ease of misuse.

[isuhawkeye]

several states including iowa have and use vehicle fuel cards in the aircraft and the ground vehicles.  as far as I know there has been no misuse.

the biggest issue is chasing down 108's after the mission

[FW]

CAP purchases vehicles using programmed funds from our grant from the AF.

I don't know the details of the purchase process or the prices, I wonder if getting Ford or Chevrolet to become the "Official Vehicle of Civil Air Patrol" would have some cost reduction. I know the resort company I work at gets a $5K to $7K discount of vehicles from Ford and we're not purchasing hundreds, merely 35 to 50 per year for five resorts in CO and CA. They're also work vehicles, not luxury vehicles (the only add-on is a cd player w/ mp3 player jack). Chevy gave us a similar deal before Ford.

We pay GSA fleet prices for our vehicles.  I understand this is a good price.  For gas reimbursement, I guess putting a squadron gas card in the vehicle is ok.  Just make sure the squadron has the money for the fuel.  Wing usually won't advance or loan the squadron the cash (unless for mission reimbursement) and the invoice will end up being unpaid.  And, I'm starting to get a headache when a wing comes to national for a handout.

Leasing 1000 vehicles would cost us about $2million/year;  we only have about $850k.   The funds for vehicles are currently restricted for purchasing.  Some nice info; because we're saving a huge bundle of cash by consolodating our aircraft maint., we are now using the "saved" money to help more with minor/routine vehicle maint.  

We continue to buy the 15 pass. vans because of cargo capability.  However, Dennis is correct; buying a Tahoe Hybrid at 20 mpg is more efficient than buying an Expedition at 12 mpg. or  a minivan at 14 mpg.  And, maybe at some future time, we will start buying hybrids.  And, we already buy sedans, minivans and, SUV's.

Whatever we can reasonably do to minimize the members' costs for these kinds of expenses, we'll do.

[Eclipse]

Hybrids have a 20+% markup cost over a similarly scaled regular vehicle, and considering
that most CAP vehicles sit 50-80% of the week unused, someone would need a really good ROI
spreadsheet to justify the cost.

Again we're talking about pennies of offset overall.  Hybrids may be great on millage, but they still take gas.

[mikeylikey]

Lets not forget that Many vehicles SIT for weeks maybe months without being run.  We can't even get our fellow members who are charged with their upkeep, to well, keep them running.  We need an overhaul of all transportation issues within CAP. 

Take for instance why a Wing Commander gets a brand new corporate vehicle (Expedition) and never once uses it to visit units.  When it sits without being run for 2 months, it is time to give it up.  Heck The previous PAWG Commander got the new car, and we all saw less of him. 

I don't even want to go into abuse of flying privileges. We need to have a centralized system at region or higher that approves air and ground transportation of people and materials.  Often, the Wing Staff will jump in a plane and fly, when it would be cheaper to drive.  They need an equation program that will make you justify your need to use a plane or Corporate vehicle for travel. 

[arajca]

A better choice than a hybrid is a flex fuel vehicle. There is typically no up charge for getting the flex fuel version. Most auto makers offer flex fuel on most of their models.

Yes, I'm aware of the issues surrounding E85 and ethanol, but dollars at the pump, I'm seeing E85 between $0.75 and $1.10 less per gallon. I know a few folks who use E85 and on comparible driving, still find it is noticibly less expensive than straight gasoline.

[FW]

My definition of a "hybrid" vehicle is: any vehicle that can run on more than 1 fuel source.  I like biodesiel myself.  Van runs on excess cooking oil with the flick of a switch. Think of the fuel savings during encampment  .  But, I digress.   The point of this thread, I think, is how we should best use our limited funds to purchase the most efficient vehicles for our use.  And, as Mikey so diplomatically  stated, how we can most efficiently use them.  

The first question can be answered with a little extra study.  The second, requires study and, IMHO, some culture change.  

[arajca]

Lets not forget that Many vehicles SIT for weeks maybe months without being run.  We can't even get our fellow members who are charged with their upkeep, to well, keep them running.  We need an overhaul of all transportation issues within CAP. 

As one of those members, I can keep it running (I've called in some favors to do so), but I can't get WING to allow me to keep it running. It took six months to get the instrument lights fixed so we could use the van after sunset. To get this done I had to take the van to a service center 3 HOURS away - in each direction. TWICE! Otherwise, it would never have gotten fixed.

[mikeylikey]

^^

Wow.  Does your wing have a Wing Administrator??  They can easily call NHQ, fill out the request and "sign for the Commander".  Then wait 1 day for NHQ to approve, and you get the reimbursement go ahead.  I am shocked YOU went so far to get it fixed.  All you need are at the most 3 estimates in your area.  Nothing more.  Now, Paint Jobs are a little more in-depth. 

The reason it takes so long in your wing, is they are doing it the ass-backwards way.  Use the Paid Staffers to get the "daily" work done.  IF your Wing Transpo Officer is the original requester, then call the Wing Vice or Chief of Staff and tell him or her the system sucks. 

[arajca]

The problem is that no shops in my area will give a free estimate for electrical work, but all would apply the cost of the estimate to the final bill if we had them fix it. I had to take it to a shop the LGT used to own to get a free estimate.

I'm trying to get an alignment, but everything has to go through the new LGT - who replaced the one mentioned above.