Is CAP Taking Work Away from Profit Companies?

[RADIOMAN015]

Not to pick on Maine wing but see the article here:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/313377-3/RiverValley/Civil_Air_Patrol_pilots_on_wildfire_patrols/

It looks like the state is not awarding a contract to fly fire patrols but instead is giving it for much less money for CAP to do?  (Saving over $57K a year for the state)

Again, is this something Civil Air Patrol should be doing? (e.g. flying cheap missions to support cash strapped states, but yet causing other aviation companies to lose revenue
RM

[DBlair]

This reminds me of how a certain unit I know of had an agreement with a certain State to do Wildfire and Coastal patrols and another agreement with a Sheriff's Department to do all of their Air Operations so they wouldn't have to spend money on helicopters, pilots, and expenses.

Eventually, that unit decided to break off into their own organization with 'Air Support' as its mission and was essentially adopted by the State/County as far as expenses. The members all still fly their own planes and have organizational grades, staff positions, and similar uniforms to when they were an official CAP unit, but now they are technically under the County.

I'm not saying this is what will result- it just reminded me of how things started for the unit I'm thinking of...


As for should CAP be doing this? Sure, why not? it seems to fit right in line with what we as an organization often do.

[A.Member]

Again, is this something Civil Air Patrol should be doing? (e.g. flying cheap missions to support cash strapped states, but yet causing other aviation companies to lose revenue

Absolutely this is the kind of stuff we should be doing.  This is our value proposition.  

If the work fits within our mission parameters, we should be looking for it.  In this case, I think fire spotting is a worthy mission and loosely falls into a DR type category.  Kudos to Maine Wing for successfully marketing themselves to a value-add mission.

[♠SARKID♠]

If you were a taxpayer in Maine, would you be happy if the state shelled out that much cash when another agency would do the same job for peanuts?  [Insert economy reference here]  Yeah it puts the contractors in a tough spot but with such a year to year contract based/lowest bidder business I fail to see how they could expect job security begin with.

[RiverAux]

Definetely we should be working very closely with all levels of government in any way we can.  One of the reasons CAP was chartered was to "Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare" and in particular, "To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies."

Wildfire patrols were some of the earliest missions we were doing for state governments after CAP was formed. 

Where it gets a little iffy as far as I'm concerned is if CAP were doing this on behalf of an organization that wasn't a government agency. 

[RRLE]

To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies."

Flying a routine fire patrol, looking for a fire is not an emergency situation. I wouldn't expect CAP to be getting much support from the aviation industry if this trend continues. And that support could be lost not only from the pilots and their companies but also all the infrastructure that supports them. If this becomes an industry at war, you had better add up the allies on each side before you pick a winner. It does seem awfully short-sided for CAP to be doing this.

FWIW - the USCG Aux faced a similar dilemna back in 1984. Up to that point the Aux provided free towing, for almost any reason to boaters. In many cases, it provided gasoline to those who ran out. Then as part of some government cut-backs Congress was thinking about taking the USCG out of non-emergency SAR altogether. Congress fostered and encouraged the development and growth of the commercial salvage industry (Boat US, Sea Tow etc). The USCG tried to shift the burden of non-emergency towing to the Aux and that lead to changes to the Boat Crew Qualification Program (BCQP) that we need not go into here. Anyway, the USCG pushed the Aux very heavily into non-emergency SAR. The commercial salvors fought back by going to Congress. Congress forced the USCG to issue the Maritime SAR Assistance Policy. That policy restricts the launching of both USCG and USCG Aux assetts in non-emergency SAR if a commercial salvor is available.

And it ain't over yet. With the proliferation of states requiring boater education and the USCG Aux doing less and less of that each year, private industry began to fill the gap. In at least 2 states, NJ and HI, there has been a movement to boot the Aux out of the boater ed business - since government agencies or government supported non-profits (the Aux fits both definitions) should not be allowed to compete with private industry.

CAP is on a rocky and dangerous road.

[A.Member]

It does seem awfully short-sided for CAP to be doing this...

...CAP is on a rocky and dangerous road.

Bah!  Pure nonsense.

Many states do/have done fire watch missions.  This is not new or unique to the Maine Wing.

[RADIOMAN015]

If you were a taxpayer in Maine, would you be happy if the state shelled out that much cash when another agency would do the same job for peanuts?  [Insert economy reference here]  Yeah it puts the contractors in a tough spot but with such a year to year contract based/lowest bidder business I fail to see how they could expect job security begin with.

Most States have lots of rules that contract bidders must meet, to including paying government determined prevailing wages, which automatically adds (in my opinion) costs to a contract before the bidding process even begins.  Remember there's no wages that CAP has to pay, so we would automatically win in these situations -- this is not a complex mission, requiring complex training.  You just fly over the fire and take a GPS fix & call it in.   I'm not so sure the article is correct in indicating the actual costs that the state of Maine will have to pay to CAP Inc -- it seems to me the cost per hour should be higher.
RM

[RiverAux]

Flying a routine fire patrol, looking for a fire is not an emergency situation

Take a look at your state's emergency plan and you will find wildfires probably have a section all their own.  Various CAP wings have been flying wildfire patrol missions since at least 1942. 

[arajca]

This is not a scheduled service. It's an on-call service. So it's like CAP will be flying each route every day at 1300hrs. When the state feels a check is needed, they call out CAP. No biggie.

[Gunner C]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

[ol'fido]

While I think that CAP should supprt the aviation industry as much as possible, I also think that business leaders in aviation should not have a business plan that includes going after jobs that the states can get for less money through CAP or other non-profits.

It would be like Starbucks going into a disaster area and setting up a coffe stand selling  $5 lattes and scones and complaining because everybody was going to the Salvation Army tent and getting Maxwell House and donuts for free. Not good forward thinking in a free market economy.

[lordmonar]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

[DBlair]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

Agreed.

I think there is something to be said for a government actually trying to save money instead of throwing away a ton on inflated prices and needless spending- then complaining down the road they they don't have enough money for other things. A government looking for the most financially prudent method is being responsible in its management of tax payer money.

[RADIOMAN015]

I've gotta agree.  It's VERY taxpayer friendly.  State governments don't work for the contractors, they work for the folks who are supplying the money.

Hmm, got to wonder how many years the state of Maine was paying for these contract flights.  Seems to me that CAP's been around in Maine since the days of WW II.

Again I'm not judging anyone, but when you start a start a new program at any level, shouldn't you be looking for the least costly way, and if volunteers can do it, than go that way!

Once you start using small business contractors or paid employees, it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.
RM   

[RiverAux]

Quite a bit of government activity could, in theory, be done by a for-profit company and similarily a lot of what the government or a for-profit company does could be done by unpaid volunteers.  

For example, you could have in the same area a for-profit ambulance service, a city operated ambulance service, and a service run by a volunteer fire department.  

So, where someone sees a chance to do something for a profit they will always do what they can to make it difficult for volunteers or a government agency that is supposed to be doing the same basic function.  The political climate over the last few decades has definetely helped out the for-profit people in some of these areas, such as the towing controversey that RRLE mentioned involving the CG Auxiliary.

So far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents government or volunteers sponsored by the government from competing with private industry, so it is all up to Legislative bodies and the laws that they want to pass.  A state could pass a law making it more difficult for volunteers in these situations, or they could also pass a law giving preference to volunteers in situations involving government contracts for services.    

[A.Member]

Once you start using small business contractors or paid employees, it's got the potential to become ugly for the volunteers who perform the service, when that government agency cuts out the small businesses or gets rid of the paid employees, and gets some volunteers to replace them.

So?   

As a competitor, whether for-profit or non-profit, the burden is on the business to show why the State should chose their services over another.  As with our country's military, it is not a jobs program.   So, a business has the burden of proving their value, plain and simple.

[RADIOMAN015]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

Actually the American Red Cross blood program does make a profit for the organization by charging inflated processing fees that are paid via insurance companies, or the taxpayers via various government programs.  My view is they use a lot of scare tactics about running low/out of blood, that sometimes gets them more blood than they need and the blood expires and has to be destroyed, sans some by product processing. 

The Military thinks so highly of the American Red Cross program, in that they started their own program see: http://www.militaryblood.dod.mil/   
Even in civilian communities the Red Cross blood program is not the only game in town so to speak, and other non profit hospital are running their programs directly, without any publicity scare tactics.
RM
   

[KyCAP]

I would encourage government to utilize assets to the max that they can without "increasing" the size of their resources to the detriment of the capitalistic market.  More return on my tax dollars on an already "size limited (by Congress)" fleet.

[lordmonar]

Who said that non profits can't compete with for-profit corporations?

The Red Cross has been in the cheap blood buisness for longer than CAP has been around....anyone complaining?

Actually the American Red Cross blood program does make a profit for the organization by charging inflated processing fees that are paid via insurance companies, or the taxpayers via various government programs.  My view is they use a lot of scare tactics about running low/out of blood, that sometimes gets them more blood than they need and the blood expires and has to be destroyed, sans some by product processing. 

The Military thinks so highly of the American Red Cross program, in that they started their own program see: http://www.militaryblood.dod.mil/   
Even in civilian communities the Red Cross blood program is not the only game in town so to speak, and other non profit hospital are running their programs directly, without any publicity scare tactics.
RM
   

My point is....a non-profit organisation can compete with for-profit organisations.