Objection, Your Honor!

[ColonelJack]

(I can just hear the moaning now -- "Not another corporate uniform thread!")

I'd like to ask the following question of the general assembly:

For those of you who don't like/object to/downright despise the Corporate Blue Service Uniform (known to some as the "TPU"), what precisely is your objection to it?

I'm interested.

Jack

[DrDave]

The cost.

Dr. Dave

[MIKE]

• Mixing military insignia/uniform items with "civilian clothing." (As defined by CAP-USAF/CC.)
• Quasi-militaryness of uniform.
• It's for fat (but well groomed) members who want to look military.  See second point.
• It's fugly.
• It's not USAF style.
• Did I mention it's fugly?

[JohnKachenmeister]

My objections:

1.  The whole uniform looks more "Navy" than "Air Force."

2.  Lose the silver braid.

3.  Its for fat guys, and fat guys look WORSE in double-breasted.

[Pylon]

1.  No forethought into female version
2.  No wear-test period to gain membership feedback
3.  Double-breasted is very difficult to pull off well, IMHO.
4.  The garish silver sleeve braid is way over the top, for me.
5.  Requires it's own nameplate, own rank devices, and all sorts of other unique (read: more cost) items.
6.  Did I mention double-breasted jackets look poor on many men?
7.  What's with the silver banding on the service cap, too?  Garish and tacky.

I do think it's a good start in a direction for a good set of corporate uniforms that should eventually become the sole corporate equivalent to the Air Force uniforms.   It's got some improvement to undergo.

[ColonelJack]

The cost.

Fair enough.  But an AF officer's blouse has a similar cost, does it not?  And for those who can't wear the AF blouse, it's the same amount of money (more or less) to get a uniform look.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

• Mixing military insignia/uniform items with "civilian clothing." (As defined by CAP-USAF/CC.)

And yet the CAP-USAF/CC has said he doesn't have a problem with the uniform.

• Quasi-militaryness of uniform.

Those of us who don't meet "military" specifications can't have a military-style uniform?

• It's for fat (but well groomed) members who want to look military.  See second point.

And the problem here is ... ?  I'm one who can't lose enough weight to look "military" -- well, not without bariatric surgery, anyway -- so I can't look like I belong too?

• It's fugly.

A matter of taste.

• It's not USAF style.

Except for the double-breasted style -- which is military -- it's almost exactly like a USAF uniform.

• Did I mention it's fugly?

Yes, you did.    

Remember, I am not trying to pick a fight or anything.  I'm seriously interested in what people think.  If I am out of line in my replies, let me know.

Jack

Tags - MIKE

[JarakMaldon]

My biggest beef with the TPU is the use of the plain AF blue shoulder marks.  With the Navy-style coat, the uniform is plenty distinctive, but without it, it looks just a bit too similar to the AF uniform.

The sad thing is I know there are people out there who bought the TPU (the white shirt and pants part of it anyway) just so they could look more like Air Force officers.

Ascetically, the silver braid is a bit much, IMHO.

[ColonelJack]

1.  No forethought into female version

True, but the version I saw on Gen. Courter doesn't look bad at all.  Very flattering, in fact.  (Not that she needs to be flattered or anything.)

2.  No wear-test period to gain membership feedback

And I would like to have seen this as well.  It would've made the introduction of the uniform a lot smoother.

3.  Double-breasted is very difficult to pull off well, IMHO.

I'll upload a photo of me in the uniform and let you be the judge.  I think I pull it off quite well, but I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

4.  The garish silver sleeve braid is way over the top, for me.

Agreed.  Regular sleeve braid to distinguish officers from NCOs would be better.

5.  Requires it's own nameplate, own rank devices, and all sorts of other unique (read: more cost) items.

Again, I agree.  But these items could have been realized before the uniform was authorized, so those who wanted it could have known in advance of the total cost -- unlike the first release, in which all AF-style insignia was okay, to the current, with (as you say) its own stuff.

6.  Did I mention double-breasted jackets look poor on many men?

Yes, you did.  

7.  What's with the silver banding on the service cap, too?  Garish and tacky.

The CGAux uses the same thing on their combination cover.  Doesn't look tacky there, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.  We might think it looks garish on the AF service cap because they've never had anything but the black leather strap, I suppose.

I do think it's a good start in a direction for a good set of corporate uniforms that should eventually become the sole corporate equivalent to the Air Force uniforms.   It's got some improvement to undergo.

And I fully agree with you!  But the constant condemnation of the whole idea rather grates on me (you couldn't tell, could you?).  I am interested in why people feel the way they do.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

My biggest beef with the TPU is the use of the plain AF blue shoulder marks.  With the Navy-style coat, the uniform is plenty distinctive, but without it, it looks just a bit too similar to the AF uniform.

I think that should be fixed as well.  If nothing else, authorize pinning CAP cutouts to the blue shoulder marks, and require it.

The sad thing is I know there are people out there who bought the TPU (the white shirt and pants part of it anyway) just so they could look more like Air Force officers.

I know a few who are the same way in the AF uniform.  It doesn't make the corporate uniform bad; it makes the members who feel that way look silly, though.

Ascetically, the silver braid is a bit much, IMHO.

Agreed.  Regular braid would be better.

Jack

[jimmydeanno]

• Mixing military insignia/uniform items with "civilian clothing." (As defined by CAP-USAF/CC.)

And yet the CAP-USAF/CC has said he doesn't have a problem with the uniform.

Excuse me if I am wrong for I am young and naive...but,

Doesn't the mixing of civilian and military wear pertain to complete military uniforms?  What makes the military uniform, not the specific garments, but the insignia placed on those garments.  Without the insignia it is just a business suit, so...since the TPU is not a military uniform, and has insignia marking it as such, the civilian clothing with it doesn't pertain...so...the CAP-USAF/CC wouldn't really have anything to say...right?

[JarakMaldon]

This is coming out of left field, so please feel free to shoot it down without mercy...

What if the new medium gray Army Service Uniform shirt if it took the place of the white aviator?  I don't pretend to be a fashion designer, but would it look good paired up with shade 1625?



Again, left field.

[mikeylikey]

^^  Ummmm NO!  Not only do MOST members of the army hate that shirt, but it would look terrible paired with the AF shade.  It needs to be a darker shade than what the AF has or it will look bad. 

sidenote......a lot of us when hearing of the Army blues becoming the everday dress were happy, then to hear we would need a gray shirt.....kinda ruined it!

[davedove]

I don't mind the uniform at all, and think it's an important step to create a military style uniform for the members.

What I don't like:

1)  You have to meet AF grooming standards to wear it.  Why create a corporate uniform, then exclude a segment of your membership from wearing it?

2)  The uniform has it's own unique rank insignia.  The insignia should be standardized across the board for all uniforms.  If you're going to use the grey slides for some uniforms, use it for all of them.  This also goes for nametags and other items.

[MIKE]

Doesn't the mixing of civilian and military wear pertain to complete military uniforms?  What makes the military uniform, not the specific garments, but the insignia placed on those garments.  Without the insignia it is just a business suit, so...since the TPU is not a military uniform, and has insignia marking it as such, the civilian clothing with it doesn't pertain...so...the CAP-USAF/CC wouldn't really have anything to say...right?

Some of the military uniform regulations specifically state what uniform components may be worn with civilian clothing.  Example:  You can wear the windbreaker or all weather coat without insignia, but other distinctive parts are prohibited.

[Dragoon]

I think a corporate service dress is a great idea, but I've got  one major issue:

It should match, as closely as USAF will allow, the wear policies of the CAP/USAF Service Dress.

Same nametags
Same grade insignia.

The only differences should be those mandated by the Air Force (like no military ribbons, and probably no U.S. cutouts)

By making the uniforms as similar as humanly possible

1.  We increase uniformity
2. We decrease confusion (how many folks are gonna put the wrong insignia on the wrong coat?)
3.  We decrease cost - fewer stuff for members to buy (some of us do plan on buying both suits) and larger production runs of insignia at Vanguard, which should lower price.

The Corporate Service Dress as a way to bring our members together - great idea.  As a "end run" around USAF to wear pin-on rank - bad idea.

(and yeah, the sleeve braid has got to go!)

[jimmydeanno]

I don't really have any objections to the TPU, for the most part it is a sharp looking uniform.  I wish we had a "uni" form that everyone wore regardless of what grooming standards, weight standards, or whatever else.

I personally don't like the stigma that many of the uniforms recieve. "That one is for the big people," "That uniform is for the hairy people," "This one is for people who are skinny and shaven." 

NEW MEMBER> "Great, I'm glad I joined CAP, what uniform should I order..."
US> "Well, you're too fat to wear this one, so we're going to make you wear this one and make you stick out.  Then when people ask why you are wearing it, we'll say, 'because he's too fat to wear this one.'"

I don't care if someone weighs 400 pounds, has a beard and is wearing a "military looking" uniform as long as it is worn correctly and fits right and the person made the effort to look presentable.

I think it is important for our mission to be what people remember us for, and removing or elimintating 9 out of 10 different uniforms would help that.   I really don't care what uniform CAP tells me to wear, if they want to ditch the AF style and just say TPU, fine, as long as I look like the guy next to me. All these different colors, variations, styles, insignia, etc. make us look like 10 different organizations than one with the same mission.

[RogueLeader]

My specific reasons for not like the TPU are as follows:
1  Too many uniforms already
2  Nonstandard Insignia
    a) nameplate
    b) epaulets
    c) etc.
3  Shade of Blue
    -very close to AF
      -not easy to distinguish
4  Divides the corporate wearers
   a) Fuzzies
   b) Non-Fuzzies

[Psicorp]

My only objection to the TPU is that the aviator shirt / gray pants combo still exists.

Okay, I too have a dislike for the silver braid (blue braid would look better) and I think the blue epaulets should have been the Cadet Officer style with CAP embroidery.

The few members I've seen wear it have looked pretty spiffy.   The lack of fore thought  in having a female version ready at the same time as the men's either says we don't have enough women on the NB or that there wasn't much consultation going on at all.

[ColonelJack]

My specific reasons for not like the TPU are as follows:
1  Too many uniforms already

How many is too many?  By my count, we have three uniforms for "dress" use -- AF blues, Corporate blues, and aviation greys.  (I'm not addressing field uniforms or flight suits here because ... well, because I'm not.  It's not the topic of this thread.)  As someone has said, one for the fit, one for the fat, one for the fuzzy.  Maybe I'm alone in not seeing this as exactly a problem.  And before anyone says "Blazer," that's what you wear over the aviation greys.

2  Nonstandard Insignia
    a) nameplate
    b) epaulets
    c) etc.

There we agree -- but it could've been addressed before the uniform was introduced, not changed as time went along.  A little forethought would've gone a long way.  That said, I don't necessarily think the same grade insignia should be used on every uniform.  The Navy/Coast Guard doesn't -- they have sleeve stripes, shoulder boards, and collar insignia depending on the combination you're wearing.  CGAux is the same way.  Train the people what to wear on what uniform and you solve the non-standard insignia issue.

3  Shade of Blue
    -very close to AF
      -not easy to distinguish

The shade of blue shouldn't be an issue.  It's supposed to resemble an AF uniform while at the same time not actually be one, and be readily distinguishable.  From the front, the double-breasted nature of the blouse is the dead giveaway; from sides or back, the silver braid on the sleeves.  (See?  I knew it had some purpose.)

4  Divides the corporate wearers
   a) Fuzzies
   b) Non-Fuzzies

The AF blues/aviation greys already did that; all we added with corporate blues was a military uniform that those who are vertically challenged can wear, if they ain't fuzzy.

Jack