CAP Vehicle purchases

groundpounder · March 30, 2006, 07:51:19 PM

I notices in the recent report to Congress that we spent $1.5 Mil on new vehicles last year.

I have to think, do we really need a bunch of vehicles? Or is there a better way to spend that money?

$1.5 Mil works out to about one van per state, not very much when you break it down that way. Looking at it another way, at the IRS rate of $.445 cents per mile, would CAP be better off reimbursing it's members for the miles they put on their own cars during CAP business and forget most of the vans?

Forgetting about all of the other costs, gas, oil, maint, that would add up to much more than the $1.5 Mil, at $.445 cents per mile, members could drive 3.4 million miles in personal vehicles. Thats a lot of ELT's tracked down no matter how bad of a DFer you are.

What do you think???

Al Sayre · March 30, 2006, 08:12:23 PM

Gotta have some way to tote the Cadets. I know my insurance company would have a cow if I were to load a bunch of cadets into my POV on a regular basis without telling them and then have an accident (God forbid).

Pylon · March 30, 2006, 08:13:38 PM

I, for one, really like the vans. Our organization is actually blessed that we have these things, in my opinion.

I don't think that mileage reimbursement on personal vehicle driving is the way to go. If that's the primary method of transportation that this organization encourages, you open up a lot of potential problems to SMs with unsafe vehicles (you know, brakeline is failing, tire is almost flat, or whatever), among other things. Verification of miles would be a bear, and what things would qualify for reimbursement and what wouldn't? There could be huge potential for fraud of reimbursements.

Plus, our vans make us look very professional. They identify who we are, look like we're a real agency that can be taken seriously, and are a moving billboard ad for CAP as well.

When I take my squadron to an activity, I usually only need the van plus one "chase vehicle" for extra SMs. If I had to make the same trips using POVs, I'd be looking at four, five, maybe more vehicles! On some of the long trips that we take, we'd be looking at gas, miles, and tolls for all those vehicles instead of just one or two. We put a lot of hours and miles on our CAP van, and would hate to see it go.

By CAP owning vehicles, we also control the maintenance, upkeep, inspection, and other important factors pertaining to the vehicle.

We have them, they work, I don't see any reason to cut that out of CAP. In fact, if anything, I'd like to see their proliferation and increased purchase of CAP vehicles for more units.

Al Sayre · March 30, 2006, 08:15:44 PM

Absolutely!

Pace · March 30, 2006, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2006, 08:12:23 PM
Gotta have some way to tote the Cadets. I know my insurance company would have a cow if I were to load a bunch of cadets into my POV on a regular basis without telling them and then have an accident (God forbid).

Give this man a medal. He just hit the nail on the head.

Forget for a second that CAP vans are bigger than most POVs. Most SMs won't even think about putting a cadet in their POV unless CAP insurance is covering it. The only time this would be the case was if it was ES and the POV was signed in and covered under the mission number.

Here's the problem: The LAWG just got 3 new vans. Of those, only 1 went to a unit. The other two went to the LAWG/CV and LAWG/CC, respectively. I know of at least 3 squadrons who desperately need a van. The wing king already had a personal corporate aircraft. Why the van too?

CAP Producer · March 30, 2006, 10:29:30 PM

Quote from: dcpacemaker on March 30, 2006, 10:11:36 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2006, 08:12:23 PM
Gotta have some way to tote the Cadets. I know my insurance company would have a cow if I were to load a bunch of cadets into my POV on a regular basis without telling them and then have an accident (God forbid).
Give this man a medal. He just hit the nail on the head.

Forget for a second that CAP vans are bigger than most POVs. Most SMs won't even think about putting a cadet in their POV unless CAP insurance is covering it. The only time this would be the case was if it was ES and the POV was signed in and covered under the mission number.

Here's the problem: The LAWG just got 3 new vans. Of those, only 1 went to a unit. The other two went to the LAWG/CV and LAWG/CC, respectively. I know of at least 3 squadrons who desperately need a van. The wing king already had a personal corporate aircraft. Why the van too?

That is just wrong. Units should get the resources not the Wing CC and CV. They should have a TDA like they do with Communications equipment. There is nothing wrong with the HQ having a vehicle but is should be available for all staff and units if they need it.

Vehicles should be in units where they do the most good.

Major_Chuck · April 02, 2006, 03:03:37 AM

Having been a Wing LG in my CAP Career I can tell you that there is a tremendous advantage to having the vans within the CAP Vehicle Fleet, as well as th 4x4's.

The obvious advantage in the larger vans is the ability to move lots of people and or supplies in one vehicle. Using POV's for such activities can become a problem when you either need to round up someone with a van or four or five drivers willing to play driver.

Then you have support to the various national activities. MER is often tasked to support large scale encampments, cadet activities, and National sponsored events. The ability to draw upon CAP owned assets saved a lot of time and money and contributed to the success of those activities.

Glider Support. VAWG has two gliders. Having vehicles that can serve as tow support enables that wing to provide an excellent opportunity to our cadets.

Emergency Services. How many of us are willing to leave our vehicles at a prolonged SAR or DR activity? Not me. How many of us are willing to let someone else drive our brand new vehicle?

You can apply the same arguement to our fleet of aircraft. If we have members that own their own plane why should we buy corporate owned aircraft? I don't see too many pilots willing to let someone else fly their plane.

Communications support. VAWG had comm caches scattered around the state as well as an extensive repeater network in the mountains. Support of these assets required a 4x4. Does that mean one of the requirements to be Wing DC is to own a 4x4.

mikeylikey · April 03, 2006, 03:39:44 PM

I suspect that the purchases last year and the appropriated funds for new purchases in the first quarter of 2006 may be all for the next one to two years. The AF likes the idea of CAP having it's own fleet, but with the budget and financial troubles it is unlikely to see many more new vehicles. The buy for last 5 years was presented to the AF each year as a remedy for the "aging" fleet vehicles of 1979-1985. I think they may be tired of hearing the same story over and over again.

The vans are great, but we need to perform the maintenance and upkeep that goes along with having them. I read the report that a Pennsylvania Squadron had their van's transmission stolen. In the article, the Squadron Commander said that after "letting the van sit next to a barn for four months I went to start it and it would not start". 4 MONTHS! The question should not be whether a van is a good thing or not, but can we take care of what we already have!

Nick · April 03, 2006, 04:48:40 PM

Heck, I say we maintain a fleet with the minimum vehicles necessary for emergency response and then get approval to use GSA vehicles for scheduled events where we need to provide transportation (conferences, encampments, NCSAs, etc.) ... but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

arajca · April 03, 2006, 05:03:14 PM

Not everyone is near (say within 75 miles) of a GSA motor pool.

SKYKING607 · April 04, 2006, 04:43:41 PM

If the vehicles are maintained and professional in appearance I am all for MORE corporate vehicles. Why can't we have a car-maker as a corporate sponsor?

arajca · April 04, 2006, 05:00:38 PM

Give the pilot-centered viewpoint of National, no one there probably has looked at a ground vehicle corporate sponsor.

Fearlessleader01 · April 04, 2006, 05:24:21 PM

I think we need the vans. It would be a terrible thing if a SM crashed a POV loaded with cadets and/or SMs. The vans are also very effective at moving people and supplies compared to someone's POV. I'm for more vans. Sometimes my squadron has to borrow a second van for activities.

Earhart1971 · April 19, 2006, 05:39:03 AM

Quote from: SKYKING607 on April 04, 2006, 04:43:41 PM
If the vehicles are maintained and professional in appearance I am all for MORE corporate vehicles. Why can't we have a car-maker as a corporate sponsor?

This is an excellent idea, get Ford or Chevy to come up with a dollar a year lease program, for CAP and Tax benefits.

Split the plan between Ford and GM, let them "turn" the vehicles after the vehicles are out a year or have so much millage. They send them to auction and sell the lightly used vehicles like they do the rental car fleets.

They are hurting with heavy inventories on SUVs I hear.

Gas prices are forcing sales downwards.

Major_Chuck · April 19, 2006, 03:37:51 PM

I was just thinking of how our government bailed out Chrysler in the early 80's and every branch of service and government agency was flooded with the crappy K-Car.

afgeo4 · May 02, 2006, 05:43:23 AM

Anyone know if CAP will be purchasing the new Sprinter vans by Dodge/M-B/Freightliner?

Their functionality, reliability and fuel efficiency (25MPG) cannot be beat, but what's their safety record? They're quite tall and narrow. Are they stable? Any opinions?

mikeylikey · May 02, 2006, 07:37:59 PM

Ha.....try again! Why would CAP purchase something that would save money. All they care about is the upfront cost and if I am not mistaken, those vans will run very high, even with fleet purchases. Expect new broncos for the Wing Kings and suburbans for his cronies. The vans we have now are the vans we will be stuck with for many years.

arajca · May 02, 2006, 11:33:09 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on May 02, 2006, 05:43:23 AM
Anyone know if CAP will be purchasing the new Sprinter vans by Dodge/M-B/Freightliner?

Their functionality, reliability and fuel efficiency (25MPG) cannot be beat, but what's their safety record? They're quite tall and narrow. Are they stable? Any opinions?

They are expensive - $30K for a basic van. Since they are so popular, Dodge isn't cutting deals on them.

Ford73Diesel · May 03, 2006, 10:06:00 PM

Some squadrons nearby share vehicles almost on a weekly basis. Last year we had and used 15 CAP vans at encampment. Vans are a must, plus it increases the professional look (just like having a good uniform).

Sprinter vans are terribly expensive. In addition diesels are more maintence and very tempermental. Can you trust that the $30,000+ van is getting oil changed, fuel filters etc.....? (I own a diesel truck)

I like the chevy 3500 15 passenger vans better than the fords because the chevy has a longer wheelbase and a better ride. I'm saying this as a ford guy.

My squadron is fortunate enough to have one of the coolest CAP vehicles nationwide. It is used wing wide for a bunch of different stuff.

2004 Chevy 2500LD Crew Cab
6000 V8 4x4
Work truck interior (the vinyl kind you can sweep out)
Fiberglass Cap, radio rack, rhino liner

The only downside is MPG and it's seating capacity is 6.

I'll see if I can get pictures if your interested.

BillB · May 04, 2006, 12:26:46 AM

So the Dodge is expensive. CAP doesn't care. All CAP corporate vehicles are funded by USAF and purchased under the federal fleet contract, which cuts the cost of each vehicle by a good percentage. -However the Dodge is a rather specialized vehicle, and the Chevy Vans better fit the needs of most CAP Squadrons. So I don't expect to see many changes.