Is CAP Taking Work Away from Profit Companies?

[RRLE]

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.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

In case, you are wondering I have no personal or family involvement with the aviation industry.

[RiverAux]

I do agree that there is some potential for some "bad" publicity if CAP takes over where once someone was getting paid to do a job.  The pilot(s) losing their jobs certainly aren't going to feel kindly towards CAP and neither will their friends.  

However, I think that negative impact would be more than outweighed by the public being happy about saving tax dollars and could possibly result in more pilots being interested in joining CAP as we would be able to point out a concrete mission that we are performing at the local level.  Potential recruits are more impressed by what you ARE doing as opposed to what you MIGHT be doing...

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

They approved the regulation that would let us charge up to $.01 cents less than what a private company would charge (it doesn't say that expiciitly, but just requires that we charge less than private companies). 

[SJFedor]

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.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

And how does the USAF feel about the planes it paid for and maintains being used to put private business out of business?

In case, you are wondering I have no personal or family involvement with the aviation industry.

The USAF doesn't pay for our fleet, the taxpayers do. And the aircraft do not belong to the USAF, they belong to Civil Air Patrol, Inc, they were just purchased with appropriated funds. And when our aircraft are used for non-USAF paid missions, the customer pays for operating expenses (fuel/oil), plus a flat maintenance rate, which goes into the big bucket that Consolidated Maintenance uses to pay for all the mx on our birds.

Honestly, the AF probably doesn't have any opinion on the subject, other then they're happy that we're getting hours on our airframes, and the money the taxpayers spent to purchase these aircraft isn't being wasted by the aircraft sitting on the ground.

This is one contract job where we're doing work for the state government. It's not like we're taking over everything these companies provide. It's a mission we've been doing for years upon years already. You trying to draw that parallel is like saying that every time we do SDIS sorties over a disaster area, we're putting corporate aviation out of business because they, too, could go take the pictures we're doing.

Do you want your taxes to go up so the state can pay out the wazoo for some company to fly over the state, when someone could do it cheaper, and perhaps, better? I'm sure you wouldn't consider it scabbing if it was you paying for it.

So....

[KyCAP]

In the end, if the government is going to be "doing it" then it's probably required by Law or some part of public safety which is in the end funded by your an my tax dollars.    So, I say if there's a cheaper way, then in today's market, then yes, do it.  Lower my taxes.  I don't suggest that CAP go into competing with commercial airlines though (unless we bail out the airlines too).

[heliodoc]

While its worthy for CAP to do wildfire missions...

The State and Feds contract this kind of work to small business and nowadays the 411 is to put National Guard resources on airtanker duty.

Arguments such as 1932 laws come into effect that NG resources will not occupy contract work until ALL civilian resources are exhausted.

Now whatever States that have it written into law that can use CAP can do wildfire patrol....fine.  Lets look at small business vs CAP..

Only argument ...CAP is cheaper in varying degrees.  Alot of small businesses have been doing this and lead plane work for tankers for numbers of years.

While CAP may have been doing this for a number of years and many here will say this is what our intended missions are for DR and whatnot

CAP needs to be REAL careful in this arena...better look at the folks in your community that do this for their bread and butter and they MAY NOT take too kindly to "taking away" from the economy.  

Wildfire contracts where I am from require CFI and most often a 135 ticket, so for CAP to just jump on in....... well I would just check out your States contracting system before jumping in saying we will do it for "free"

Free , no such animal, most wildfire operators need to meet requirements as well as CAP.  Nothing needs to be in the Constitution about this, but there are laws about using military resources over civilian contractors, nothing in the law yet about volunteers that I know about.

While many communities or States may or may not have a wildfire section in their LEOP, resources will be listed.  Usually in the wildland fire business, PAID contractors are listed as the lead for wildfire patrol. Because of their backgrounds, they are contracted and most likely carded by Office of Aircraft Services- USDOI or USFS and that is passed down to the States.

I would think CAP should then submit to this process if they want more of these missions.  Every contractor I know HAS to go thru this process every spring.  To just let CAP do this "cuz we can do it cheaper" without the other processes everyone else has to go thru ..paid or not, CAP should have to be subjected to that process.

Take i t form some body who knows..   I have been in this wildfire business in one form or another for the last 20 yrs.  I have seen and participated in many of the business dealings and have been involved as an aerial observer in one form or another helo or fixed wing...

CAP doesn't get a free pass on this one.  There are procedures for this....and on this forum there are forum talkers that will point out PROCEDURE in CAP operations.  Now it is time for CAP to follow procedure on State contracts or USFS USDOI for wildfire patrols.  Simple as that , just because we have done it since 1942, doesn't always hold during 2009 standards

[RiverAux]

Incidentally, CAP also flies wildfire patrols for DoD....

[KyCAP]

CAP doesn't get a free pass on this one.  There are procedures for this....and on this forum there are forum talkers that will point out PROCEDURE in CAP operations.  Now it is time for CAP to follow procedure on State contracts or USFS USDOI for wildfire patrols.  Simple as that , just because we have done it since 1942, doesn't always hold during 2009 standards

Sounds like a valid point.   What are these procedures and where does one learn about them?  I will bite.

[heliodoc]

^^^
You addressing that to me??

Many States run parallel and respect what the Feds establish for wildfire operations

Does CAP fly wildfire patrols for EVERY DoD operation, bet there are contractors as well...

But i forgot this is CAP forum...... they do evrything don't they Aux??

Nice to get CAP in the plug, tho...

[Johnny Yuma]

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.

Yeah.

Everyone knows that the Red Cross's job!

[A.Member]

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

Again, this is pure nonsense.  If a volunteer puts them out of business, then they didn't demonstrate a viable enough competitive advantage.  The State is not there to provide this opportunity as a job program.  Contracts are won and lost all the time.  And while I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation in Maine, based on the info in the article, it most definitely sounds like the decision was made by the Forest Service in an attempt to cut costs as a response to a reduced budget.

[RiverAux]

Though since we're primarily talking about flying for state agencies, the federal rules that apply to DOI, Agriculture, etc. don't apply at all so are irrelevant.  

[Johnny Yuma]

As a taxpayer, whatever the state, local or Federal governments need to do to reduce spending should be done.

If a bunch of volunteers want to fly missions for the state and it saves money, go for it. It's time for the contractors to find new sources of revenue besides government.

[biomed441]

^^^
Agreed. If the state manages to find cheaper alternatives to performing its duties, in this case fire obseravtions or what have you, then why not? If the state has requirments about individuals performing such duties as mentioned before, then I am sure there are more than enough CAP pilots willing to take care of what ever training is necessary in order to fly these missions.

Theres nothing wrong with a state wanting to save money. And in this economy, can you really blame em?

[FW]

CAP has been doing this kind of mission (with the Forrest Service) for decades (at least the last 25 years).  CAP mission pilots have been doing "patrols" over state and national forests looking for a lot more than wildfires.  IMHO, we do not compete with private companies; we may even serve to augment their capabilities. 
CAP does not want to take work away from anyone.  That is the main reason we do not provide primary flight instruction.  However, we do offer a service to state and local agencies and provide assets that perform the service well. If we weren't successful, we wouldn't be asked to do it.

[jimmydeanno]

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

Or in NH, the state is laying off state employees that stand in the fire towers.  About three quarters down the article it mentions that the state is using "an air patrol."  That's us.

http://www.wmur.com/news/19186856/detail.html

All in all though, I think it is a good idea.  The government isn't supposed to be a job bank and the more they can do with less resources, the better.

[heliodoc]

Correct the guv isn't a job bank

BUT States and Federal guv have been contracting for services for a number of years  and I see no changes in sight.

I do agree, however, that contracting out work to civilian companies to save the government money has been a spectacular saving to guv operations either.

Either way, you are paying a contractor or you are paying CAP for the fuel to fly missions.

I suppose CAP is going to start manning and getting on volunteer fire departments now to either fight fire or work those towers, eh??  Which in the past they did

Mannining those fire towers are done by 1) volunteers2) temporary state employees such as smoke chasers that earn a whopping 7 to 12 an hr with no benefitsand there is usually a fire training program involved for approx 40 hours plus some job shadowing with other foresters or forest technicians.

It's a skill that not everyone has and certain in some folks views such as CAP's "it's so easy, a caveman can do it" prevails.  CAP MIGHT save some money for some State governments, bur SAR skills and our services do not always match everyones missions.

I would say augement a with contractors on a rotating basis so everyone can get a fair shake.  Thinking CAP can save the day in every DR operation and save money at the same time is not always true and hopefully the "professional membership" here remembers just because we have " a reduced" price as far as labor rates go.....we are NOT the only aviation outfit out there.

Whether or not CAP has been doing this for years with the Forest Service or DoD or not, there are rule s the Feds put out and the States and at bare minimum, with the contracts out there , a bare minimum of a 135 ticket could be involved and that may be how CAP skirts around the rules getting the gigs.  There are other operators that do not require 135 on contracts, each State is different

But just because someone is using CAP, doesn't mean it's free, somebody is getting the bill somewhere

[A.Member]

Thinking CAP can save the day in every DR operation and save money at the same time is not always true and hopefully the "professional membership" here remembers just because we have " a reduced" price as far as labor rates go.....we are NOT the only aviation outfit out there.

True but that's where the burden becomes that of our competitors.   Our value proposition is a lower cost service with skilled/trained personnel.  It's the responsibility of a competitor to successfully argue/demonstrate that they bring an added value to the table that CAP or some other competitor does not.  If they cannot do that, they shouldn't expect a contract.  That's how business works.

[DG]

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

Again, this is pure nonsense.  If a volunteer puts them out of business, then they didn't demonstrate a viable enough competitive advantage.  The State is not there to provide this opportunity as a job program.  Contracts are won and lost all the time.  And while I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation in Maine, based on the info in the article, it most definitely sounds like the decision was made by the Forest Service in an attempt to cut costs as a response to a reduced budget.

Is it legal?  Did it have a full and comprehensive legal review?

Is it covered by Part 119 or does it require we have a Part 135 Certificate?  These are hard to come by.  If you were a Certificate owner, would you be in favor of CAP performing the work without needing to obtain a Certificate?

Is it covered by our exemption to Part 119 or Part 135 from the FAA?  If so, do the individual pilots have a commercial license?  Is our exemption limited to certain transportation flights?

Does it comply with CAPR 60-1 "CAP aircraft will be used only for official CAP business."?

Are the answers in any way different for CAP flights to perform rush-hour traffic reporting?

[wuzafuzz]

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.

It is known as scabbing. For all of you who think this is a good idea, how would you feel if some volunteer put you, your spouse or your kids out of work. Just so the volunteer coudl maintain some credential or license on the taxpayer's dime. And forget all the high-flautinting rhetoric - free flying is what this is all about - not saving the taxpayers money.

I'm not a pilot, I don't fly for free, and it IS about saving money.  If the job can be done to an acceptable standard, doing it cheaper will win almost every time. 

As for the derogatory term "scabbing," that term is usually used in reference to people who refuse union membership or replace striking workers.  Not sure it really applies to volunteers who are simply providing a community service.  Like it or not, if you save your community some cash you just did it a service.  On the flip side I've seen plenty of paid folks force out volunteers to improve their own bottom line.  It can work both ways.

[Capt Rivera]

I don't get it. I've seen only one person say "tax me more". (NetFlix CEO)

As a country, over all we want the government to do more with less. We want less income tax, we want less sales tax, we want less property tax, etc.

Although it's not likely that our services will cause less taxation our services can allow thousands of dollars to be used elsewhere.
- unemployment could use more money (debate not needed)
- more law enforcement (debate not needed)
- legal system (public defenders/judges/public prosecutors) (debate not needed)
- public utility (debate not needed)
- infrastructure (debate not needed)
- education (debate not needed)
- etc (debate not needed)

So you contest people might be out of jobs? Education/training is an investment and we all know that not all investments payoff always or forever. Sometimes people need to find new jobs. There are all types of professionals looking at different fields both permanently and temporally.

This is a area in which it should be local governments responsibility to seek CAP/etc out if CAP/etc in that area can successfully meet the mission.  I commend any local/federal government entity that believes it would be better to allow CAP/etc pilots who desire to render this service fly when needed in an efficient manor then to spend unnecessary money to pay select pilots to fly sometimes and sit around most of the time.

While we consider not doing these missions. Lets think about all the Americans who could enlist/commission and do inland SAR as a primary mission. It would be great. We can procure all of the following which will create tuns of jobs.
-Create a new command (lots of people needed for that
- buy air planes - people got to build em
- train/pay pilots - got to fly the planes (sometimes)
- train/hire maintainers - someone has to maintain/fix a/c
- bases - hire a bunch of people to support the regionally placed bases flying this mission (great for that local economy)
- and so on and so on...

or....

We (the US) can pay private contractors to be on call to look for a/c etc and turn of ELTs... that would be a great job. How much would my salary be to be on call all year long and maybe get a call? I'd sign up for that free money, wouldn't you?

I wish our legislative body at all levels was at least introduced to "lean" principals and expected to attempt to find ways to do more with less. They/we should also recognize that when for profit companies look to "lean" themselves... they are looking to increase their profit margin without noticeable/any loss of quality provided. They are NOT usually looking to charge less.