CAP Talk

It looks like they may have lost the case. On the their website I see a message dated March 15 that says the court ruled they dont have a license to sell Civil Air Patrol items.  Man, this organization is getting hard to work for.......Oh wait, I mean volunteer for.......

Quote from: SSIAJ on March 17, 2010, 02:23:43 AM
It looks like they may have lost the case. On the their website I see a message dated March 15 that says the court ruled they dont have a license to sell Civil Air Patrol items.  Man, this organization is getting hard to work for.......Oh wait, I mean volunteer for.......

http://www.thehock.com/ (http://www.thehock.com/) looks like they aren't giving up the ghost quite yet if you keep reading their statement.  I understand the licensing issue and don't wish to rehash it here.  Let's hope the Hock can still make a go of it with a different business and marketing plan for the non-licensed items they can sell.  I'm guessing there was a settlement agreement reached recently.

I've always been impressed with their "gear" packages and will use them to aquire my personal gear from now on....it will cost a bit more than utilizing surplus stores, however, I will remain as loyal to Lt Col Flanagan as he has been to CAP since the 1950s.

¡Salud!, Lt Col Flanagan, ¡Salud!

Quote from: SSIAJ on March 17, 2010, 02:23:43 AM
It looks like they may have lost the case. On the their website I see a message dated March 15 that says the court ruled they dont have a license to sell Civil Air Patrol items.  Man, this organization is getting hard to work for.......Oh wait, I mean volunteer for.......

We've run a long thread on this already.

Bottom line: Tom's a great guy who has done a lot for CAP members, but he's been breaking the law. perhaps simply hoping he'd be ignored.

Vanguard has an exclusive contract. They have the right to tell him to stop.

Quote"The Hock Shop" ...Isn't that a weird name for a uniform accessory source?  Actually it's not so strange - but before I tell you about it, let me tell you something about myself. I'm a senior member of Civil Air Patrol and have been a member since joining as a cadet in 1956 in Maine. When I moved to Massachusetts, the unit that I was with at the time was having difficulty obtaining uniform accessories for its members. (This was before the "CAP Bookstore", predecessor to CAP-Mart, started selling uniform accessories). The local store which sold the items had a habit of selling senior items to cadets and vise versa. This, understandably, caused a lot of headaches for everyone. I figured that if I put up a few dollars, I could buy a few of the basic Civil Air Patrol  items, and put the profits from the sales back into inventory. The cadets, meanwhile, would be able to buy what they needed easily, and for less money they could elsewhere. Word of this little enterprise spread to nearby units which expressed a desire to buy their Civil Air Patrol items from me rather than to send away and have to wait. One year, I was asked to bring my "box of goodies" to a summer encampment. While there, one of the cadets in a group which was looking over my display, made a comment to one of his fellow cadets in which he referred to my operations as "The Hock Shop". Well, the name stuck, and by word of mouth, spread throughout the Wing, eventually getting back to me. As everyone around knew my hitherto unnamed operation as "The Hock Shop", "The Hock Shop" it became.

Go read that section...funny, but since the "Civil Air Patrol" is still there, even if you can't see it w/o highlighting, they are just asking for more trouble

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 17, 2010, 01:14:56 PMGo read that section...funny, but since the "Civil Air Patrol" is still there, even if you can't see it w/o highlighting, they are just asking for more trouble

Uhm, Civil Air Patrol can't stop people from saying their name.  Stopping that would be akin to NHQ telling a company that sells gear that they can't put on their website that they welcome Civil Air Patrol customers or have a discount for Civil Air Patrol members.

  I wrote TOM a letter and told him that I will buy from him until I have to go somewhere else. I like the prices and the shipping (free for now)  ;D  I am sure he will find a way to get back on track. If we all support his store and buy from him he will not go out of business.  I bet he finds a way to supplement the items he can not sell anymore.  GO TOM

Quote from: Pylon on March 17, 2010, 03:52:19 PM

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 17, 2010, 01:14:56 PMGo read that section...funny, but since the "Civil Air Patrol" is still there, even if you can't see it w/o highlighting, they are just asking for more trouble

Uhm, Civil Air Patrol can't stop people from saying their name.  Stopping that would be akin to NHQ telling a company that sells gear that they can't put on their website that they welcome Civil Air Patrol customers or have a discount for Civil Air Patrol members.

Hawk was specifically told to remove all instances of CAP/Civil Air Patrol as per the message posted earlier. The fact that they have to shrink it to font 1 and make it a subscript proves that they know they are walking a fine line.

Depends upon what one defines walking a fine line

CAP has NOtrademark on ANY field gear whatsoever

For CAP to claim THAT..........is pure CAP bunk

WHAT?  CAP has a trademark on MRE's and compasses?  Folks thinking that are smokin some cheap stuff!!

Well, I cant, and wont support Vanjunk. 

I cant buy any of our usual products (coins, patches, shirts) from any American vendors for our encampment because of all of the [redacted - mod].

And I am getting to the point where I cant support the program any longer.  Amy and her trolls at NHQ/NB are professionals at incompetence and killing the program with stuff like this.  Renewing this year is going to be a hard decision. And no, this isn't the only straw, just the small, last one that could break the camels back.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on March 17, 2010, 01:14:56 PM

Quote"The Hock Shop" ...Isn't that a weird name for a uniform accessory source?  Actually it's not so strange - but before I tell you about it, let me tell you something about myself. I'm a senior member of Civil Air Patrol and have been a member since joining as a cadet in 1956 in Maine. When I moved to Massachusetts, the unit that I was with at the time was having difficulty obtaining uniform accessories for its members. (This was before the "CAP Bookstore", predecessor to CAP-Mart, started selling uniform accessories). The local store which sold the items had a habit of selling senior items to cadets and vise versa. This, understandably, caused a lot of headaches for everyone. I figured that if I put up a few dollars, I could buy a few of the basic Civil Air Patrol  items, and put the profits from the sales back into inventory. The cadets, meanwhile, would be able to buy what they needed easily, and for less money they could elsewhere. Word of this little enterprise spread to nearby units which expressed a desire to buy their Civil Air Patrol items from me rather than to send away and have to wait. One year, I was asked to bring my "box of goodies" to a summer encampment. While there, one of the cadets in a group which was looking over my display, made a comment to one of his fellow cadets in which he referred to my operations as "The Hock Shop". Well, the name stuck, and by word of mouth, spread throughout the Wing, eventually getting back to me. As everyone around knew my hitherto unnamed operation as "The Hock Shop", "The Hock Shop" it became.

Go read that section...funny, but since the "Civil Air Patrol" is still there, even if you can't see it w/o highlighting, they are just asking for more trouble

The Hock's mention of Civil Air Patrol in their letter to customers is not a trademark infringement as it is a nominative use of the term.  That is what our organization is called.  It's the placement of the term or related terms on goods or services that turns it into infringement sans a licensing agreement.

If you like the Hock, buy what you can from them.  That's the best thing you can do to help.  I will continue to shop them for uniforms, gear, and other items.  Money talks, b.s. walks.

CAP association with Vanguard as opposed to finding another source(s) of suppliers is CAP's "last cry" to hold onto its 68 yr old "military roots."

If I am offending........so? 

Tom has provided a service that CAP somehow found a way to "associate" with the military for whatever reason.  Surely it was NOT cost savings.

I am sure will abide by CAP's childish behavior, 'cuz once again for whatever reason, CAP can not play with every one else in the sandbox without having its POOR feelings hurt.

This is one reason why there a number of reasons CAP membership (some) have a sour "attitude" towards the org.  As if some in CAP know what attitude is

GO TOM....Keep selling the stuff CAP has not control whatsoever.......give CAP a RUN for ITS money!!

Is this some big surprise?  We knew last month this was what would happen.  Luckily, AAFES sells CAP Nametapes and Branchtapes at $1.00 each.  Also, I was smart and spent all the Squadrons money on the Hock's insignias etc.  I have guaranteed that for at least the next 3 years, my Cadets and Officers will not get scammed by Vanguard. 

Do I feel bad for Tom.....not at all.  How many years has he been making money off of us?

Do I hate Vanguard.......you bet I do.

Are there ways around Vanguard.......you be there are.  Just sit back and explore the internet.  You can find many things Tom sells cheaper in other locations.   

Spike....AAFES is VANGUARD for the most part!

Pretty true: I seem to recall that every item of military insignia that I ever bought had a Vanguard label on it.

Well, you do not have to feel bad for Tom, but he was in business to make money, so is Vanguard, but I think tom had better prices and much better service.  Id rather spend at THE HOCK

Quote from: bosshawk on March 17, 2010, 06:28:47 PM
Pretty true: I seem to recall that every item of military insignia that I ever bought had a Vanguard label on it.

So I walk into the Sioux Falls ANG BX with my ANG buddy.  And lo, to my surprise, what do I see them selling? ANG and USAF insignia and rank from Vanguard and no one else.  OH THE HUMANITY!  It was like TURKEYS DROPPING FROM THE HEAVENS LIKE WET BAGS OF CEMENT, to quote newsman Les Nessman from a famous episode of WKRP.  Yet, Airmen and women were doing their jobs and F-16s were being readied for launch at the base despite this crime against humanity. 

^"...the crowd was 'curious', but 'well behaved'..."

^"As God as my witness I thought turkeys could fly."  Arthur Carlson, station manager, WKRP.  Wasn't he also the CC of the CAP Queen City Cadet Squadron back in the 1970s? ;)  Now THERE's a celebrity!

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone know if CAP NHQ get a percentage of the VanGuard sales that the Hock Shop is not allowed to sell.  I thought I saw a memo once that stated they did. Just curious to know.

Yes, of course they do.  National makes every attempt at prompting us to buy from the "sponsors" because they provide a certain percentage of their sales to CAP.

Quote from: Dutchboy on March 18, 2010, 02:39:34 AM
Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone know if CAP NHQ get a percentage of the VanGuard sales that the Hock Shop is not allowed to sell.  I thought I saw a memo once that stated they did. Just curious to know.

NHQ has indicated that Vanguard has donated several hundred thousand dollars to CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 18, 2010, 03:49:55 AM

Quote from: Dutchboy on March 18, 2010, 02:39:34 AM
Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone know if CAP NHQ get a percentage of the VanGuard sales that the Hock Shop is not allowed to sell.  I thought I saw a memo once that stated they did. Just curious to know.

NHQ has indicated that Vanguard has donated several hundred thousand dollars to CAP.

"Donated" or just sent us our share which was agreed upon when we signed the contract...

Quote from: PHall on March 18, 2010, 04:02:07 AM"Donated" or just sent us our share which was agreed upon when we signed the contract...

I've always wondered which it was. If they're not contractually obligated to provide it, then it is a "donation". You can write those off on taxes.

The notice at the top of the VG site says "donated" ... my guess is they are using the 501c status to their advantage. Seems it would be stupid of VG not to "donate" it and write it all off. It probably even says donation in the contract, which sweetens the deal for them.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 18, 2010, 03:49:55 AM

Quote from: Dutchboy on March 18, 2010, 02:39:34 AM
Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but does anyone know if CAP NHQ get a percentage of the VanGuard sales that the Hock Shop is not allowed to sell.  I thought I saw a memo once that stated they did. Just curious to know.

NHQ has indicated that Vanguard has donated several hundred thousand dollars to CAP.

Which it promptly wasted in PAWG.

^^^^+1,000

Quote from: Marshalus on March 18, 2010, 04:36:29 AM
The notice at the top of the VG site says "donated" ... my guess is they are using the 501c status to their advantage. Seems it would be stupid of VG not to "donate" it and write it all off. It probably even says donation in the contract, which sweetens the deal for them.

They would still get a tax writeoff as the license or royalty payment is a cost of doing business

^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

Quote from: FW on March 18, 2010, 03:16:50 PM
^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

And you will notice not one dollar spent west of the Mississippi, hence the heartburn from those of us "out west".

Quote from: PHall on March 18, 2010, 03:19:59 PM

Quote from: FW on March 18, 2010, 03:16:50 PM
^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

And you will notice not one dollar spent west of the Mississippi, hence the heartburn from those of us "out west".

Do we have any facilites like that out west?

I'm sure that if CAWG or TXWG started building ES facilities they would get a chunk of the money.  As much heart burn as I have over HMRS....I have no problem with how the VG money is was spent.

Quote from: FW on March 18, 2010, 03:16:50 PM
^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

Since regulations strictly limit rappelling in CAP, and it's use is even more limited for CAP GTs, I would view funds expended on this tower as a waste.

^Actually, HMRS has a waiver from NHQ for repelling; which is part of the school's curriculum.  Its use for GTs is problematic.  But, I'll leave that for another discussion... ;D

The funds we receive from Vangard can be used for facilities in the west however, to date, none exist.  The NEC (at least until now) has allowed funds to be released when there is a "matching fund" agreement with the members applying for money.  The funds are available for "regional training facilities" so.....

Why not give every squadron a percentage of those funds based on how many squadrons their currently are? That way everybody gets a fair piece.

Quote from: davidsinn on March 18, 2010, 04:49:19 PM
Why not give every squadron a percentage of those funds based on how many squadrons their currently are? That way everybody gets a fair piece.

You dilute the money and the end result accomplishes little. I've heard figures of 230K from Vanguard and ~1700 Units. That comes to ~$135 for each unit.

What were the funds assigned to NBB and NESA applied to?

Quote from: davidsinn on March 18, 2010, 04:49:19 PM
Why not give every squadron a percentage of those funds based on how many squadrons their currently are? That way everybody gets a fair piece.

When the funds are applied to a national activity such as NBB they can be better used because they would be more significant.  Not only that but every unit benefits from the enhancements at national activities because they are open to participation from every unit. 

Quote from: PHall on March 18, 2010, 03:19:59 PM

Quote from: FW on March 18, 2010, 03:16:50 PM
^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

And you will notice not one dollar spent west of the Mississippi, hence the heartburn from those of us "out west".

Weren't those "wrapped" vans in the Dakotas paid for by the Vanguard rebates, royalties, or donations, however they're classified?

Quote from: lordmonarDo we have any facilities like that out west?

Most of our activities in the west are at adequate military and government installations.

The only CAP dedicated training facility out west that I can think of is the one sponsored by "Evergreen International" in Oregon. I heard they have at least a permanent PT "Obstacle" Course up on the training grounds, and maybe an Orientation Course as well. I'm not sure of any buildings or other permanent structures.

If the sponsor ever turned ownership of the land and any facilities over to Civil Air Patrol, I'm sure National who start contributing to upkeep and upgrades too.

But like others, I somewhat view Vanguard's donations as "blood money".

Quote from: Cecil DP on March 18, 2010, 05:18:03 PM
Weren't those "wrapped" vans in the Dakotas paid for by the Vanguard rebates, royalties, or donations, however they're classified?

I think the vans were classified as "mobile" regional training facilities..... >:D

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 18, 2010, 03:43:17 PM

Quote from: FW on March 18, 2010, 03:16:50 PM
^Exactly. 
BTW; PAWG did not receive any money from Vangard.  The cash was used to help build a repelling tower at HMRS and update the facility; bringing it up to code.  The facility at HM is owned by CAP.  PAWG only administers the school.  CAP also spent money at NESA and NBB facilities.  I wouldn't call any of these expenditures waste however, YMMV.

Since regulations strictly limit rappelling in CAP, and it's use is even more limited for CAP GTs, I would view funds expended on this tower as a waste.

There is no restriction on repelling in CAP GTs......just with CAP cadets.

The Texas Wing has had all sorts of trouble trying to find a home for its Texas Wing Summer and Winter Encampment and its CTEP programs at said installations driving up the prices for these activities for "out of pocket" expenses and outright cancellations of said activities. 

I think the time is at hand for CAP to build Wing level Facilities for such training and even ES activities, which can be rented out to other organiations (with necessary insurance stipliations and properly handled legal matters), such as the Boy Scouts, Volunteer Fire Academies and the like.

If the vangaurd stipend can start that process in the West, then it better darn well happen. 

So...start your research, find a location, get a price tag, get a building plan and line up some donors for the initial investiment.  Write up a proposal for the Vanguard Money and submit it to the NEC.

^currently in progress in GAWG and WAWG. 

In my wing, if you build things where human beings live, the entire $250K(ish) that VG has given so far would get you a
good-sized 3 or 4-car garage-sized building or a store-front-type facility.

Something on the scale of an EOC or encampment-capable facility is $1-2 Million, and then there's operating costs.

Put it in more rural areas and the price goes down, but so does the use, which then equals atrophy, dilapidation, and your per-use costs
go up significantly.

Operating on the "Blanche DuBois Model" is really the only way CAP is able to sustain its capabilities - there's a reason the military costs so much - the $cale of operation$.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 18, 2010, 08:36:02 PM
"Blanche DuBois Model" is really the only way CAP is able to sustain its capabilities - there's a reason the military costs so much - the $cale of operation$.

Don't you mean "Benson DuBois," CAP can operate a facility of its own construction because there are, at least in Texas, umpteen organizations looking for a facility and those of the Texas National Guard are sought after and filled.  I would say that such a facility in Texas could self-sustain leasing out its spaces and facilities and be booked year round.

The last thing CAP needs to be is a landlord - we explored a shared-use EOC-type concept locally, and among 40 other challenges,
we found that anything worth our time would need almost full-time management, and most CAP people don't join to be building managers or maintenance people, nor could we sustain hiring someone.

That's another place where some key full-time employees would open up all sorts of possibilities, but frankly its fairly off-target for
what CAP should be doing.

Our "model" is most successful when we can take advantage of underutilized military facilities and equipment - places where Uncle Sam worries about the lights, heat, and roof, and we can just play CAP when we need to. There's just not that much of it around anymore.

So, list all the underutilized facilities in Texas?  They all all being utilized...which is why we are having trouble.

If we want facilites that meet our needs and will be available for our use (and not drive up encampment fees to $300 plus dollars) then we must build, own and operate them.  It is not good practice to expect to attach to some military base when there are none to be had.

My point it that our existing model is "broken", since it depends on facilities and resources no longer available.

Building new facilities that we have to capitalize is not going to reduce the cost of encampments - why do you think most comparable
activities from other organizations cost 2-3x's s much?

Our Spring costs $75 this year, which includes 9 meals, 4 overnights and access to plenty of mil-spec toys.  I don't even want to think about
what it would cost if we had to maintain our own buildings, not to mention there'd be no pool, SAMT, Seamanship trainer, or gym - certainly not on the scale we have access to now.

You might consider dual-chartering your Squadrons as BSA Venture Crews, which will give you access to BSA facilities at very low cost. Its a heck of a lot cheaper than buying. If you know any Billionaires who would like to endow CAP with money for a Military School like facility, it could not hurt to ask them.....  Col. Land of ACA can probably give you better feedback on the ins and outs of facilities acquisitions.

Major Lord

I have brought this up...but am told that they don't have what is needed for an "ENCAMPMENT." 

I think that name needs to be changed, there is no actual camping done at an "encampment."  If cadets slept in tents for that week and held classes in what they need to, would that not better define an encampment?  I think using the various patrol methods would teach team work and allow the actual instruction to be applied.

I think the name should be changed from "Encampment" to "CAP Cadet Induction Week."

Not to be confused with "CAP Indoctrination Week".

Quote from: Major Lord on March 18, 2010, 09:18:05 PM
You might consider dual-chartering your Squadrons as BSA Venture Crews, which will give you access to BSA facilities at very low cost. Its a heck of a lot cheaper than buying. If you know any Billionaires who would like to endow CAP with money for a Military School like facility, it could not hurt to ask them.....  Col. Land of ACA can probably give you better feedback on the ins and outs of facilities acquisitions.

Major Lord

Perhaps someone has successfully sailed these rocky shoals before, but as I understand it, CAP only has one FEIN for 501(c) purposes, not the individual squadrons, groups and wings.  So the donated money, again, as I understand it, goes to the CAP Iron Rice Bowl for either all to use or for a purpose that our governance sees fit to spend it on.  If someone has gotten a major grant (let's say five figures) from United Way or some other donor for their own use without NHQ involvement, I'd like to know how you accomplished that.  PM me if you prefer with your experiences.

All money donated to CAP units belong to CAP INC.

There are a  lot of grants and things to local squadrons....but they should have been coordinated through wing....especially if the were over the dollar threashold (I can't remember what it is off hand).

Although I don't see any particular problem with CAP, Inc. being the custodian of a facility that could be used be used by every subdivision of CAP, I don't see how that would effect using BSA facilities. As far as a donation to CAP, I have heard of, but never seen directly, "directed" endowments, i.e.,  the case of a car dealership donating a vehicle for the direct use of a single Squadron, with the understanding that the vehicle was Corporate property.

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 18, 2010, 09:28:13 PM
I have brought this up...but am told that they don't have what is needed for an "ENCAMPMENT." 

I think that name needs to be changed, there is no actual camping done at an "encampment."  If cadets slept in tents for that week and held classes in what they need to, would that not better define an encampment?  I think using the various patrol methods would teach team work and allow the actual instruction to be applied.

I think the name should be changed from "Encampment" to "CAP Cadet Induction Week."

All the encampments I've been to seemed to attempt to emulate Basic. Why not "basic training"?

That would work great if it was done in the first year of every cadet's membership. Sadly, some cadets aren't able to attend until their second or third year, and they have bypassed much of the direct CAP training they will get at encampment. I, myself, didn't get to my encampment until my third summer in CAP, and was a C/TSgt at the time.

Quote from: SarDragon on March 18, 2010, 11:45:26 PM
That would work great if it was done in the first year of every cadet's membership. Sadly, some cadets aren't able to attend until their second or third year, and they have bypassed much of the direct CAP training they will get at encampment. I, myself, didn't get to my encampment until my third summer in CAP, and was a C/TSgt at the time.

And I bet you still learned something. While you didn't learn to be a follower, I bet you got a pretty good lesson on stepping up and leading your "team" through the fun that is Encampment.

My experience with these sorts of things parallels Bob's.

I have worked closely with various military bases that were closing down, looking at the feasibility of getting some barracks and headquarters buildings donated.  As it turns out, they would have loved to give us significant portions of the former Fort Ord, Moffet Field, Alamada Naval Air Station, or even the March Air Reserve Base.

The problem comes with the details.  The Fort Ord barracks would need to have all the asbestos insulation removed, and brought up to current building codes.  Not to mention trying to find folks qualified to operated the boilers (pre-HVAC stuff).  I figured I could have talked them out of the ADA stuff (think elevators for WWII barracks and wheel chair ramps for the latrine), but even if they had handed them over "as is", we simply could never maintain them. 

Everytime I tried to run some numbers, I could never make it close to economical.  There are certain costs associated with maintenance that cannot be avoided - heat & lights, for instance.  And old government buildings are not the most energy-efficient structures in the world.  Roofs need to be replaced and maintained.  Plumbing  (particularly old plumbing) needs to be repaired and maintained.  Paint, lawns, interior repairs and you are talking serious, serious money.

And how often would it really be used?  Sure you might run 3-4 encampments a year.  Throw in a couple of RCLS's, and maybe a dozen weekends for NCO schools, drill comps, model rocketry weekends, and whatever, and you will find that even with intense scheduling, the building is sitting vacant over half the time.  (But still needs maintenance.)

You could try leasing it to outside groups like the Scouts or ACA, but they are going to want to use the buildings at the same time you do - weekends and the summer.  You could try to get seniors to use the buildings to train, but they don't want to hold the wing conference in tired old government buildings and are rarely enthused about sleeping in open bay barracks and showering in a big room with 10 other seniors.

This is normally the time when one or more parents will volunteer to cut the grass, and Billy's Dad's best friend used to be a roofer, so he can maybe do the repairs "at cost", and everyone thinks it is reasonable for the Power Company and/or Uncle Sam to donate the utilities.  The only folks who don't think so are the Power Company and Uncle Sam.

I tried very hard on multiple occasions to come up with some sort of a financial model that wasn't just a disaster waiting to happen.  But despite my best eXcel and Access skills, I couldn't do it.

And we have a precedent.  It wasn't that long ago that a non-insignificant number of units had acquired 44-pax buses after wing screened used buses from the AF.  Big buses come with big maintenance costs, so not surprisingly the units wound up "deferring" more and more of the routine maintenance until the buses became unsafe, or simply sat parked behind the squadron headquarters for years at a time.  Forlorn vehicles with flat tires, broken windows, and missing seats became the norm.

It would be the same kind of thing with barracks.  Until Bill Gates wants to endow the Microsoft Leadership Training Facility, it will take a smarter person that me to figure out how to make it work.

YMMV.


And I have pitched an idea to the region and wing DCPs that NHQ - when processing the cadet's initial membership package - would "order" the cadet to encampment the following summer.  In essence, they would receive a letter from Gen Courter to the effect of:

"Greetings.  You have taken the first step along a path to incredible learning and adventure.  Congratulations!  You are hereby ordered to attend (*Your Wings*) encampment to be held (*date*) at (*location*) for advanced leadership training.  Failure to attend encampment will result in loss of eligibility for the coveted Billy Mitchell Award and cadet officer status.   If you are unable to attend your scheduled encampment, you must make alternative arrangements to attend another one.  Contact your squadron commander for furher information."

The theory is to create an expectation of encampment attendence during the first year, and impose an "opt-out" posture instead of the current "opt-in" methodology.

Like many of my ideas, this has not been met with wild enthusiasm.

Oh well.  I'll keep trying.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, Crummy job title)

What about the AF providing a facility on a base, with CAP being a tenant?  I don't know all the details, and there are issues, but both Squadrons here on Nellis use base facilities.  There's got to be a base (especially out West where we need this) that has downsized a bit and has available buildings.  Sure there will be maintenance, but the maintenance required would be negligible in the grand scheme of the facility.  Maybe a joint AF/CAP use facility.  There's got to be a way to make something like that work.  Given that we are Congressionaly mandated to be here as the Air Force Auxiliary, I don't see why this couldn't be a road taken.

Big difference between providing a sqdn meeting place and providing a training facility with classrooms, dorms, messing etc. The Aux thing doesn't buy us much when it comes to this sort of stuff. I don't mean to sound negative but this has been looked at with every AF base, depot and radar station that has closed in CAWG and that's a bunch. When the AF downsizes something or closes it they do it to cut costs not continue to maintain it to help out their little CAP buddies. One former AFB in CA wanted 30K just to keep the mess hall available plus rent everytime we used it. 

Wow!  So the over priced shipping is what is kicked back to CAP!?!?!?!

Amazing concept...

14 more days....

Quote from: necigrad on March 19, 2010, 12:42:10 AM
What about the AF providing a facility on a base, with CAP being a tenant?  I don't know all the details, and there are issues, but both Squadrons here on Nellis use base facilities.  There's got to be a base (especially out West where we need this) that has downsized a bit and has available buildings.  Sure there will be maintenance, but the maintenance required would be negligible in the grand scheme of the facility.  Maybe a joint AF/CAP use facility.  There's got to be a way to make something like that work.  Given that we are Congressionaly mandated to be here as the Air Force Auxiliary, I don't see why this couldn't be a road taken.

uni

That works until the USAF needs your realestate for some new ramp space.  You are promised office space just as soon as CE's new building is built and we can move these guys over there.......but wait.....those guys don't want to move.....screw that you've jammed 5 large rooms worth of files, into three ex-medical exam rooms....and the CE guys are glaring at you for asking every week "when you going to move".

Realestate on base is a cut throat, back stabbing, knife fight... ;D

The thread de-rail about encampments has been split from "Is the Hock Store really done?" thread (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10130.0;all), and has been moved to Encampments & NCSAs (http://captalk.net/index.php?board=6.0).

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10157.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10157.0)

Getting back on topic ::)
I noted that Tom's "The Hock Shop" is only permitted to initially state on his web page about "Civil Air Patrol's" injunction order.  He had to remove all other reference to CAP, which is kind of silly (especially the history about The Hock).   Regardless of what CAP Inc thinks the membership is going to continue to buy from The Hock Shop, especially those of us in the Northeast  because prices are reasonable, and service is considerably better than CAP's selected contractor >:D

Now as far as Vanguard's service, we have one cadet member that is over the two week mark waiting for the CAP & name tape for the BDU's.   We only recently found this out, and we have a local source that does the tapes in two days BUT there is a minimum quantity order. 

So perhaps we are stuck buying specific CAP patches & insignias from Vanguard (and hopefully they will be able to ship within two days of the order, not 1 or 2 weeks -- that's unacceptable!!) BUT all of the wearables will still be able to be purchased from "The Hock Shop" 8)
RM   

Why get cheap BDU crap from Hock?

At least with BDU.com I know I'm not getting knock-offs.

I just bought some ribbons from Vanguard, to replace some that I got from Hock, so later ones would match, and I have to admit that the Vanguard ones look nicer than the ones from Hock.  The colors are much brighter. Of course it took over a week to get them, and Hock would have had them in a couple of days.

You could technically go around the CAP licensing rule in regards to ordering nametapes from The Hock. Order two different sets of customized nametapes. There is no rule that say you can't put whatever you want on the nametapes. If you wanted obscenities, I suppose The Hock could make a nametape with various obscenities on it. Anyway, order two sets, one with the last name of yourself or any CAP members you may be ordering for, and the other with the last name of Civil Air Patrol. They aren't exactly marketing these for sale, they are merely just embroidering what you wanted.

I don't know if it legally that easy however...

I would say they are in my oppinion.

Quote from: kd8gua on March 21, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
You could technically go around the CAP licensing rule in regards to ordering nametapes from The Hock. Order two different sets of customized nametapes. There is no rule that say you can't put whatever you want on the nametapes. If you wanted obscenities, I suppose The Hock could make a nametape with various obscenities on it. Anyway, order two sets, one with the last name of yourself or any CAP members you may be ordering for, and the other with the last name of Civil Air Patrol. They aren't exactly marketing these for sale, they are merely just embroidering what you wanted.

I don't know if it legally that easy however...

I don't think the judge would agree with you.

Especially when you start off with "you can technically go around...."

True, that's why I wasn't sure. It just doesn't make sense that I could go to any personalized name tape place, and get any combination of colors, and any word, phrase, or whatnot, except for three words: Civil Air Patrol. These websites aren't marketing these items as official CAP items, it's merely just an ultramarine blue tape with white lettering. I suppose Vanguard should have CAP send C&D letters to any name tape place that sells customized ultramarine blue on white name tapes because there is the opportunity that CAP's name could be placed on customized name tapes, and suddenly the Vanguard-opoly is once again underminded.

Quote from: kd8gua on March 22, 2010, 03:14:00 AM
True, that's why I wasn't sure. It just doesn't make sense that I could go to any personalized name tape place, and get any combination of colors, and any word, phrase, or whatnot, except for three words: Civil Air Patrol. These websites aren't marketing these items as official CAP items, it's merely just an ultramarine blue tape with white lettering. I suppose Vanguard should have CAP send C&D letters to any name tape place that sells customized ultramarine blue on white name tapes because there is the opportunity that CAP's name could be placed on customized name tapes, and suddenly the Vanguard-opoly is once again underminded.

Please don't give them any ideas.  The underground sources for quality products are rapidly drying up as it is.

Quote from: Slim on March 22, 2010, 07:16:52 AM

Quote from: kd8gua on March 22, 2010, 03:14:00 AM
True, that's why I wasn't sure. It just doesn't make sense that I could go to any personalized name tape place, and get any combination of colors, and any word, phrase, or whatnot, except for three words: Civil Air Patrol. These websites aren't marketing these items as official CAP items, it's merely just an ultramarine blue tape with white lettering. I suppose Vanguard should have CAP send C&D letters to any name tape place that sells customized ultramarine blue on white name tapes because there is the opportunity that CAP's name could be placed on customized name tapes, and suddenly the Vanguard-opoly is once again underminded.

Please don't give them any ideas.  The underground sources for quality products are rapidly drying up as it is.

They pretty much have already done that.  I tried doing just that before and the store said they couldn't do it.  Heck it wasn't even ultramarine blue.  I was doing a pricing before one of the recent national boards when they disscussed a *gasp* uniform change.  This was the dark blue tape fiasco. I figured Vangaurd wouldn't have them out too quickly and wanted to make the change ASAP if it had gone through.  I was told those three little words couldn't go anything if they were done in conjunction with one another.

Quote from: Pumbaa on March 19, 2010, 01:05:49 AM
Wow!  So the over priced shipping is what is kicked back to CAP!?!?!?!

Amazing concept...

14 more days....

Yes I agree with this....Vanguard was to have said that everytime a CAP member buys from us you get a certain % of the bill.  So what do they do so they do not loose money, they charge the CAP member more in shipping to cover that cost so Vanguard can make every penny. (that is what I heard, not sure if it is 100% true) 

  So, what do we do ???

Quote from: Seabee219 on March 22, 2010, 02:31:53 PM

Quote from: Pumbaa on March 19, 2010, 01:05:49 AM
Wow!  So the over priced shipping is what is kicked back to CAP!?!?!?!

Amazing concept...

14 more days....

Yes I agree with this....Vanguard was to have said that everytime a CAP member buys from us you get a certain % of the bill.  So what do they do so they do not loose money, they charge the CAP member more in shipping to cover that cost so Vanguard can make every penny. (that is what I heard, not sure if it is 100% true) 

  So, what do we do ???

I was under the impression that VG had corrected the shipping variance to match what they charge other customers, but if they haven't register as a member of one of the other service gateways and than order CAP equipment.

I was not sure if that was corrected or not. Thank you for the info. I have never ordered from them yet, as I am going to try not to unless I HAVE to.   ;D

Quote from: Seabee219 on March 22, 2010, 07:20:02 PM
I was not sure if that was corrected or not. Thank you for the info. I have never ordered from them yet, as I am going to try not to unless I HAVE to.   ;D

I have slow shipping last time i used them.

My shipping was free the last two times I ordered from Vanguard.

I mailed in the order form on the first one, with shipping added, but a price change upped the pre-shipping cost to within a dollar of what I sent them. So it was essentially free shipping, since they never billed me for the extra money.

On the second one, I never even put the shipping on, and they didn't bill me that time either. Both orders were >$100, so that might have made a difference.

Also, one order, before those two, ended up coming in three different shipments, due to back orders. What they spent was over three times what I paid for shipping.

I just ordered about $20 worth of odds and ends from them, and I guess they decided since it took longer than expected to put together the order they'd ship it next day air. Fine by me.

I have always felt that CAP is missing the boat on licensing all the logo's and trademarks that CAP has.  If they signed a 100% exclusive agreement with Vanguard on all CAP branded items, then someone made a very bad business decision.  Vanguard cannot produce or sell every item that someone has figured out to put a name on.  CAP should have taken a lesson from the NFL or NASCAR on how to market a brand.  The NFL and NASCAR make an absolute fortune on their licensed items.  You will notice that they do not have a sole source on any of their items.  Companies have to send in samples for approval and then they are given permission to sell the item after the legal paperwork is done.

I have a friend who makes different advertising items for Disney, Coke, NFL, NBA and NASCAR.  He said he pays from 3% to 15% royalties on the items that he sells.  Every quarter he fills out the forms and sends the various companies their share of the money.  He said that once a year someone may show up to audit his records to keep everyone honest.  If he develops a new item, he sends it in for approval and he goes with it.  All the risk is on him for making and marketing the item.

For Christmas, my son got me a laser cut Civil Air Patrol plaque.  He was so proud that he found a CAP item for dad.  I was extremely impressed with the quality of the plaque.  I looked and Vanguard does not sell these plaques, so I am sure that it is 100% black market.   :clap: 

If Vanguard will not sell an item that we as members want, then someone who wants to take a chance and make the item and then pay a royalty to sell it should be given a chance.  Everyone wins.  We as members have a wider choice of items and CAP makes money on their precious trademarks.

I don't know if this was covered elsewhere, but do the Active Duty/Reserve/SDF forces all have exclusive contracts with Vanguard for "official" products, or are there multiple vendors that can be used?

Quote from: kd8gua on March 23, 2010, 01:01:21 AM
I don't know if this was covered elsewhere, but do the Active Duty/Reserve/SDF forces all have exclusive contracts with Vanguard for "official" products, or are there multiple vendors that can be used?

Would it matter in CAP?

Quote from: mashcraft on March 22, 2010, 11:56:59 PM
I have always felt that CAP is missing the boat on licensing all the logo's and trademarks that CAP has.  If they signed a 100% exclusive agreement with Vanguard on all CAP branded items, then someone made a very bad business decision.  Vanguard cannot produce or sell every item that someone has figured out to put a name on.  CAP should have taken a lesson from the NFL or NASCAR on how to market a brand.  The NFL and NASCAR make an absolute fortune on their licensed items.  You will notice that they do not have a sole source on any of their items.  Companies have to send in samples for approval and then they are given permission to sell the item after the legal paperwork is done.

I have a friend who makes different advertising items for Disney, Coke, NFL, NBA and NASCAR.  He said he pays from 3% to 15% royalties on the items that he sells.  Every quarter he fills out the forms and sends the various companies their share of the money.  He said that once a year someone may show up to audit his records to keep everyone honest.  If he develops a new item, he sends it in for approval and he goes with it.  All the risk is on him for making and marketing the item.

For Christmas, my son got me a laser cut Civil Air Patrol plaque.  He was so proud that he found a CAP item for dad.  I was extremely impressed with the quality of the plaque.  I looked and Vanguard does not sell these plaques, so I am sure that it is 100% black market.   :clap: 

If Vanguard will not sell an item that we as members want, then someone who wants to take a chance and make the item and then pay a royalty to sell it should be given a chance.  Everyone wins.  We as members have a wider choice of items and CAP makes money on their precious trademarks.

Mash:

There's one major difference between the NFL and NASCAR licensing and CAP licensing: There are millions of people willing to pay for NFL and NASCAR items with TM's of the teams and drivers.  And the NFL, College Licensing, NBA, et al are typically pretty picky about vendors being able to meet quality standards before getting a license.

CAP, in comparison, has 58,000 members.  Millions of Americans are not clamoring for CAP gear.  It's mostly just us members and maybe a few former members and family members.  That is an extremely small market.  That Vanguard considers this worth their while and is willing to pay a licensing fee is remarkable.  So, CAP doesn't have a big line of companies wanting to license or even sell CAP items.

But trademarks are protectable, whether the good or service is desired by many or a few.  The TM owner has the legal right to license or not license their mark.  And they don't have to go after every infringer, but enough that makes economic sense and provides a track record of enforcement so the mark(s) do not become generic and fall into the public domain.

I'm not privy to the decisions that led to our national leadership to decide to sue The Hock for infringement or why they decided to go with an exclusive license with Vanguard.  But what they are doing is not only legal, I would argue it is also good business to find someone willing to license and sell CAP branded goods.  It means there is at least some value in our TMs.  To throw it open to anyone to make or sell CAP TM'd goods would basically mean we think our brand is worthless.  And there would be a huge variation in quality as well.  Is our TM not worth protecting and leveraging?  I think it is.

I too think competition is good.  But CAP has a legal right to exclusively license its marks if it so chooses.  If another vendor wishes to pay a licensing fee for CAP branded goods, then, if it makes economic sense, at the end of the current CAP-Vanguard licensing agreement, that's something our leaders could consider and do.  Would Vanguard agree to a non-exclusive agreement?  Would CAP make more money by licensing to multiple vendors?  I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm guessing those things have been considered by our national leaders.

I don't know how Vanguard determines its price points on items.  How much does licensing add to the cost of goods?  I don't know for sure in this instance.  Generally, the standard royalty rates on clothing and doodads is 5% or so.  (I have some very thick books that detail royalty rates based on goods and services and who is doing the licensing. There can be quite a bit of variation.  But it also depends upon what a willing licensor and licensee will agree to.)  Vanguard seems a little higher on most items than The Hock but Vanguard also had a better selection of items to choose from.  And many seem to think Vanguard's quality was better on many items.  The biggest complaints seem to be their higher shipping costs and slower service. 

And this is not anything that is going to change during the life of the licensing agreement whether members like it or not.  The opportunity, as noted above, will be when the Vanguard agreement is set to expire.  And we've seen that CAP and our vendor will enforce their rights.  Welcome to the real world, fellow babies.  It's how business is done. 

I didnt read every post, but I can contribute on the AFFES and Vanguard. My Dad left the Army with 10 years of service. During my dad's E-5 Promotion they were standing inline and one of the guys went along checking the BRANDS on their coats. One man had lost his jacket, but bought one similar very similar he got away with it for a few years. And when they saw it was not form AFES he was refused a promotion. The jacket if he bought form AFFES would have costed a few hundred bucks when he payed 40 to 60 bucks for one exaclty like it.

Also, I saw someone said Vanguard-opoly. Dosnt the FTC try to prevent monopolies. Although I guess with licenses that dosnt matter. But, a question I have is can Tom buy a license?

Quote from: C/Martin on April 01, 2010, 09:44:17 PM
Also, I saw someone said Vanguard-opoly. Dosnt the FTC try to prevent monopolies. Although I guess with licenses that dosnt matter. But, a question I have is can Tom buy a license?

You can only license something the owner is interested in licensing.  When you hold a copyright, it is your option whether and to whom to sell manufacturing rights.

Quote from: C/Martin on April 01, 2010, 09:44:17 PM
I didnt read every post, but I can contribute on the AFFES and Vanguard. My Dad left the Army with 10 years of service. During my dad's E-5 Promotion they were standing inline and one of the guys went along checking the BRANDS on their coats. One man had lost his jacket, but bought one similar very similar he got away with it for a few years. And when they saw it was not form AFES he was refused a promotion. The jacket if he bought form AFFES would have costed a few hundred bucks when he payed 40 to 60 bucks for one exaclty like it.

I doubt that's totally accurate. Any uniform item with the appropriate approval tags is acceptable for wear. A lot of people have spread this rumor for longer than I've been military.

Now if the jacket didn't meet appropriate specification, that would be justification for action. The person wouldn't have been wearing approved clothing. The same applies to badges and other insignia. If they're from approved sources, they're hallmarked.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2010, 10:07:16 PM

Quote from: C/Martin on April 01, 2010, 09:44:17 PM
Also, I saw someone said Vanguard-opoly. Dosnt the FTC try to prevent monopolies. Although I guess with licenses that dosnt matter. But, a question I have is can Tom buy a license?

You can only license something the owner is interested in licensing.  When you hold a copyright, it is your option whether and to whom to sell manufacturing rights.

Indeed, Eclipse.
C/Martin does bring up a good point.  There is a tension between exclusive licensing and monopoly.  However, basically since the TR administration, the federal government has come down that it is not anti-trust behavior except in a few exceptional situations.  Believe me, I've tried the argument.   :D

I think everyone here has tried playing lawyer on both sides of the case for too long.

Tom violated a legal request by a Congressional Chartered Organization.  It does not matter how long he "got away with it", it matters that he kept doing it.

The Corporation should go after him with whatever they believe is justified.  In fact, a 2b may not be out of line after the case is settled as well.

The guy did wrong, he knew he was doing wrong, and he got slapped for it.

The Hock will either close altogether or end up selling foreign made ES gear. 

I did feel bad for him originally, but no longer.  If the roles were reversed here (Vanguard breaking the rules), we would all be fighting on Tom's side against Vanguard.

Enough.....back and forth arguing by people who got their law degree from Wikipedia is silly at best, and wastefull at least.   

Quote from: Spike on April 02, 2010, 04:10:24 PM
I think everyone here has tried playing lawyer on both sides of the case for too long.
 
Tom violated a legal request by a Congressional Chartered Organization.  It does not matter how long he "got away with it", it matters that he kept doing it.
 
The Corporation should go after him with whatever they believe is justified.  In fact, a 2b may not be out of line after the case is settled as well.
 
The guy did wrong, he knew he was doing wrong, and he got slapped for it.
 
The Hock will either close altogether or end up selling foreign made ES gear.  
 
I did feel bad for him originally, but no longer.  If the roles were reversed here (Vanguard breaking the rules), we would all be fighting on Tom's side against Vanguard.
 
Enough.....back and forth arguing by people who got their law degree from Wikipedia is silly at best, and wastefull at least.  

Legally speaking you are correct. However just because something is legal does not make it right or ethical. This move is the correct one under the law but is a stupid one because it screws the membership. Again.

If it's the law, then it's the law. Tom broke ethical codes by disobeying the law. The law does not protect people like Vanguard, it's there to protect the owners of the property/idea/etc, in this case CAP.

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on April 02, 2010, 06:44:46 PM
If it's the law, then it's the law. Tom broke ethical codes by disobeying the law. The law does not protect people like Vanguard, it's there to protect the owners of the property/idea/etc, in this case CAP.

Oh I was waiting for something like this. There are times when it ethical, moral and encumbent upon decent people to break the law. See fugitive slave laws for an example. Do I think this is a case like that? No, not by a long shot. Yes he broke the law. I'm not trying to say he didn't. I'm not even trying to say he shouldn't be smacked down for it either.

The poor ethics come from NHQ as well for setting this up in the first place. For a non-profit they are pretty greedy. If they were smart they would have opened the licensing up to anyone that can meet an NHQ spec and charge a percentage or flat fee. The unethical action is to set up a monopoly relationship at the expense of the members. 

Quote from: davidsinn on April 02, 2010, 08:10:32 PMThe poor ethics come from NHQ as well for setting this up in the first place. For a non-profit they are pretty greedy. If they were smart they would have opened the licensing up to anyone that can meet an NHQ spec and charge a percentage or flat fee. The unethical action is to set up a monopoly relationship at the expense of the members.

Really?  Why do you say that?


Now that you have directly accused our volunteer leaders of being greedy and unethical, perhaps you'd like to share exactly what code of eithics you are speaking about and how this contract violates it.

(You were speaking directly about an ethical violation, right?  IOW, a clear and direct violation of a given code of ethics or codified set of norms, correct?)

Remember, the whole point of the VG contract is to provide a service to our members that NHQ tried for years to provide, but ultimately failed.  The VG contract has - and will continue to -save thousands of dollars of dues that otherwise went down the drain as we tried to come up with an workable model (Bookstore, Capmart, etc) at NHQ.

Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try buing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.

VG's contract does not last forever, and will be subject to competitive bidding for renewal.  Tom (and anyone else) will be free to bid. 

Just like last time.

But seriously, before you go publicly accusing our leadership of greed and ethical violations, please be able to lay out specifically what ethics were violated and how.

No wonder it is hard to find top-notch people to serve as our volunteer leaders, when they are subject to this sort of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

 :clap: :clap: :clap:

Well stated. I am under the impression from some of the responses on this subject that CAP is somehow not allowed to protect its identity as other corporations are allowed to do. The standards that apply to other corporations somehow do not apply to CAP.

I also get the impression that some members would think it would be OK if  CAP were to get sued by VG for not holding up CAP's end of the contract, and allowing The Hock to continue to sell CAP items.

Whatever the legalities of the situation, I still think talk of a  2B is going overboard for what has been a business dispute.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 02, 2010, 10:09:54 PM
Whatever the legalities of the situation, I still think talk of a  2B is going overboard for what has been a business dispute.

Really?

Would you condone a cadet intentionally breaking a federal law?

I wouldn't.

What Tom's done is exactly that. Why should he, or anyone else, get away with setting an example that says, "Laws can be ignored until someone enforces them"?

Quote from: Ned on April 02, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
...
Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try buing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.
...

For the record, 1-800-NAMETAPE's fabric strip tapes are FAR superior to any nametape that Vanguard produces.  Just saying.  That will be all.

Quote from: Ned on April 02, 2010, 08:47:18 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on April 02, 2010, 08:10:32 PMThe poor ethics come from NHQ as well for setting this up in the first place. For a non-profit they are pretty greedy. If they were smart they would have opened the licensing up to anyone that can meet an NHQ spec and charge a percentage or flat fee. The unethical action is to set up a monopoly relationship at the expense of the members.

Really?  Why do you say that?


Now that you have directly accused our volunteer leaders of being greedy and unethical, perhaps you'd like to share exactly what code of eithics you are speaking about and how this contract violates it.

(You were speaking directly about an ethical violation, right?  IOW, a clear and direct violation of a given code of ethics or codified set of norms, correct?)

Remember, the whole point of the VG contract is to provide a service to our members that NHQ tried for years to provide, but ultimately failed.  The VG contract has - and will continue to -save thousands of dollars of dues that otherwise went down the drain as we tried to come up with an workable model (Bookstore, Capmart, etc) at NHQ.

Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try buing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.

VG's contract does not last forever, and will be subject to competitive bidding for renewal.  Tom (and anyone else) will be free to bid. 

Just like last time.

But seriously, before you go publicly accusing our leadership of greed and ethical violations, please be able to lay out specifically what ethics were violated and how.

No wonder it is hard to find top-notch people to serve as our volunteer leaders, when they are subject to this sort of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

Perhaps the greedy comment was a bit much. Here is how I see it:

Vanguard is the sole licensee of CAP stuff. I'm not arguing that fact. That's a legitimate contract under the law.

We the members are required to buy our items from Vanguard. Vanguard jacked up their prices on CAP items beyond what the identical item in other parts of the site cost until they were called on it. Vanguard gave NHQ money. That's a kickback for driving business to them and they gouged us on prices. How is that not unethical? Where was the oversight of Vanguard?

The whole single supplier contract is a failed idea for this reason. They should allow anyone to produce CAP items and charge a percentage fee just like any other organization with IP to protect.

Quote from: davidsinn on April 03, 2010, 02:04:55 AM

Quote from: Ned on April 02, 2010, 08:47:18 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on April 02, 2010, 08:10:32 PMThe poor ethics come from NHQ as well for setting this up in the first place. For a nonprofit they are pretty greedy. If they were smart they would have opened the licensing up to anyone that can meet an NHQ spec and charge a percentage or flat fee. The unethical action is to set up a monopoly relationship at the expense of the members.

Really?  Why do you say that?


Now that you have directly accused our volunteer leaders of being greedy and unethical, perhaps you'd like to share exactly what code of ethics you are speaking about and how this contract violates it.

(You were speaking directly about an ethical violation, right?  IOW, a clear and direct violation of a given code of ethics or codified set of norms, correct?)

Remember, the whole point of the VG contract is to provide a service to our members that NHQ tried for years to provide, but ultimately failed.  The VG contract has - and will continue to -save thousands of dollars of dues that otherwise went down the drain as we tried to come up with an workable model (Bookstore, Capmart, etc) at NHQ.

Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try Bing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.

VG's contract does not last forever, and will be subject to competitive bidding for renewal.  Tom (and anyone else) will be free to bid. 

Just like last time.

But seriously, before you go publicly accusing our leadership of greed and ethical violations, please be able to lay out specifically what ethics were violated and how.

No wonder it is hard to find topnotch people to serve as our volunteer leaders, when they are subject to this sort of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

Perhaps the greedy comment was a bit much. Here is how I see it:

Vanguard is the sole licensee of CAP stuff. I'm not arguing that fact. That's a legitimate contract under the law.


The whole single supplier contract is a failed idea for this reason. They should allow anyone to produce CAP items and charge a percentage fee just like any other organization with IP to protect.

The problem is that Tom knew for years that he was in violation of the CAP licensing agreement, and he kept selling the "copyrighted and licensed materials" until legal action was taken.   As for being 2b'd, I haven't heard that he has been, or that any like action is being considered. I have known Tom for 30 years, served with him in the Quincy Composite Squadron and consider him a friend, but the Hockshop is not a cottage industry that is being thrown out of business. He has made a very good living off of CAP for over 40 years, without any royalties being paid for the use of copyrighted insignia. He is still in business selling other items which are not CAP specific and probably making almost as much profits as he did before.   Let's not be sorry about his being brought to task for ignoring repeated warnings.

Quote from: davidsinn on April 03, 2010, 02:04:55 AM
Vanguard jacked up their prices on CAP items beyond what the identical item in other parts of the site cost until they were called on it.

So their evil business plan was to increase the prices and hope nobody noticed the other pages on the very same website.  How . . . optimistic of them. ;)

Never attribute malice when simple start up glitches are more likely.

But as you correctly point out, when the errors were pointed out, they fixed the problem.  That sounds like they are responsive and attentive to our needs.  Like they value the contract and our business.

QuoteVanguard gave NHQ money. That's a kickback for driving business to them and they gouged us on prices. How is that not unethical?

Oh, I dunno.  A lot of ways.  Rather than asking rhetorical questions, why not tell us why you think it is unethical.  You're they guy accusing our volunteer leaders of being unethical. 

Speak plainly, sir.

Thousands of reputable businesses offer rebates, including every major automobile company in the world. 

Think of it this way: I grant you that by definition VG could charge less for CAP items because the rebate money has to come from somewhere.  The fallacy is in assuming that VG would charge less, instead of simply pocketing the money.  This way, at least CAP gets some training facility money.  The rebate is the consideration given by VG to CAP for the contract.

QuoteWhere was the oversight of Vanguard?

The contract indeed does give oversight through the EXDIR.  Remember, no contract lasts forever, and VG values their reputation.  And if they are truly making a decent profit, they will want to be in a position to rebid the contract.

QuoteThe whole single supplier contract is a failed idea for this reason. They should allow anyone to produce CAP items and charge a percentage fee just like any other organization with IP to protect.

You keep acting like this is some sort of unusual arrangement designed to somehow screw our members, but that simply isn't true no matter how often you say it.  Single source insignia contracts are the norm, not the exception.  Try buying official Boy Scout items from anyone but their contracted supplier.  Heck, even the Knights of Columbus does not let just anyone sell their uniforms and insignia.

And it bears repeating that VG is obligated to sell all of our insignia, including some expensive to manufacture items that might only sell a few dozen items a year.  (Like the above mentioned Master CDI badge.)  The slightly higher prices on common items like CAP tapes and wingpatches subsidize the low density items that might otherwise cost hundreds of dollars each.

But let's get back to some basic doctrine.  CAP's Core Values require each of us to treat each other with Respect and dignity.  I submit that directly accusing our leaders of greed and unethical behaviour without being able to provide a plausible argument that would suggest greed or unethical behavior does not meet our Core Value of Respect.

Wouldn't you agree?

Ned Lee

Davidsinn, go into an AAFES Military Clothing Sales store and take a look at the patches and insignia that are displayed.
You will notice one thing very quickly, just about every package has Vanguard on it.
So does that mean that AAFES and the Department of Defense are being unethical too?

Quote from: Ned on April 02, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try buing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.

I just have to take a bit of an exception to this.

Sure, they or any other vendor could provide a quality product at a better price.  And for many years, they did; I used Spur Cleaners from about 1986 until they got their C & D letter.  I always knew that I could mail in an order and have it inside of two weeks.  Later, in the age of the interwebs, I could get on their website on Monday, make an order for half a dozen of each tape, and/or a nameplate, and have an envelope show up on Friday.  If they can turn an order around in 5 days, why can't Vanguard?  I've got a cadet who's now going on about three weeks waiting for name and CAP tapes from them, and paid almost the same amount for three each that I used pay for 6 each from Spur.

So what if I can't buy a CDI badge anywhere other than Vanguard?  I think we all understand that there isn't much demand for CAP specific insignia (unless C/CMSgt chevrons are the latest fashion craze :) ).  I'm not buying a new badge every couple of years, but I am buying nametapes that often.  I had no problem getting what I needed from different sources; if what I needed was only available from one source, then that's who I used.  But I liked the ability to get what I needed from the vendor of my choice.

For 27 years, I've accepted the costs associated with being a member of this organization, and had no problem buying what I needed.  It's national telling me where I have to buy it that I have issues with.

We get the fact that the bookstore/CAP Mart was a financial flushing toilet--we get it.  It did seem to make sense to buy our insignia direct from the manufacturer.  It's the increase in prices since the Hock got shut down that is a problem.  Shut down the competition, then jack your prices?  Or how about changing product to something cheaper, but not reducing the price (like the navy blue flight suit I got ripped on). 

Quote from: PHall on April 03, 2010, 04:09:15 AM
Davidsinn, go into an AAFES Military Clothing Sales store and take a look at the patches and insignia that are displayed.
You will notice one thing very quickly, just about every package has Vanguard on it.
So does that mean that AAFES and the Department of Defense are being unethical too?

I agree, but I've also seen a lot of IRA Green packaging, or AAFES generic packaging (which was most common last time I was in an MCSS).  Those nametapes Ned mentioned?  I'd bet that most military folks who buy their own (as opposed to waiting for supply to issue them) get them from Spur, Super Trooper, Cav Store, BQ, Bent Needle, or the embroidery shop just outside the main gate.

Quote from: Slim on April 03, 2010, 04:20:05 AM

So what if I can't buy a CDI badge anywhere other than Vanguard?

The problem is that if we continue to let the Hock and others skim off the cream (nametapes, etc), then VG cannot make a profit to subsidize the CDI badge at a reasonably affordable level.  The net result would be that VG would walk away from the contract and while we could buy nametapes at 1-800-nametaes, the CDI badge gets orphaned (along with most of the other badges, ribbons, and insignia.)

Although my service from VG has always been prompt, I understand that not everyone has had the same level of service.  Clearly there is room for improvement, but it makes no sense to toss the baby out with the bathwater.  The goal is to make sure all of our members can get the full range of insignia at reasonable prices.

Make sure you chain is made aware of VG service problems so they can be addressed.

Quote

Perhaps the greedy comment was a bit much. Here is how I see it:

Vanguard is the sole licensee of CAP stuff. I'm not arguing that fact. That's a legitimate contract under the law.

We the members are required to buy our items from Vanguard. Vanguard jacked up their prices on CAP items beyond what the identical item in other parts of the site cost until they were called on it. Vanguard gave NHQ money. That's a kickback for driving business to them and they gouged us on prices. How is that not unethical? Where was the oversight of Vanguard?

The whole single supplier contract is a failed idea for this reason. They should allow anyone to produce CAP items and charge a percentage fee just like any other organization with IP to protect.

One person's kickback is another corporation's licensing royalty.  ;) There's nothing illegal or improper about this arrangement.  It's done all the time in business and even non-profits where there is a valuable brand involved.  I would be ticked if CAP didn't protect its intellectual property rights and thought our IP assets weren't worth protecting and licensing. 

Again, people complain about paying extra to Vanguard and then they complain that Vanguard then provides some of that money back to CAP.  Maybe CAP can go to a nursery and find some of those money trees I've heard so much about and our financial problems would be solved.   ::)

I appear to have argued myself into a corner. I'm going to give this one up as I've come up with a pretty good case of foot and mouth disease. My problem with this whole thing is I believe in the free market and NHQ is suppressing it. Yes, it's their right to do so but I still think it's a dumb idea.

I'm sorry for the crap I spouted.

Quote from: davidsinn on April 03, 2010, 04:39:44 PM
I appear to have argued myself into a corner. I'm going to give this one up as I've come up with a pretty good case of foot and mouth disease. My problem with this whole thing is I believe in the free market and NHQ is suppressing it. Yes, it's their right to do so but I still think it's a dumb idea.

I'm sorry for the crap I spouted.

There is a free market and this is part of it. Tom was selling contraband merchandise. It's no different than Gucci or MLB going after counterfeits.The fact that it's been ongoing for 40 years is irrevelent.

Quote from: davidsinn on April 03, 2010, 04:39:44 PMI appear to have argued myself into a corner. I'm going to give this one up as I've come up with a pretty good case of foot and mouth disease. My problem with this whole thing is I believe in the free market and NHQ is suppressing it. Yes, it's their right to do so but I still think it's a dumb idea.

Agreed. When there's only one game in town, everybody loses. Competition is a good thing, and it's better for the market in general, as it provides options in quality versus cost. It gets to the point where the only differences are cost.

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 03, 2010, 06:02:02 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on April 03, 2010, 04:39:44 PMI appear to have argued myself into a corner. I'm going to give this one up as I've come up with a pretty good case of foot and mouth disease. My problem with this whole thing is I believe in the free market and NHQ is suppressing it. Yes, it's their right to do so but I still think it's a dumb idea.

Agreed. When there's only one game in town, everybody loses. Competition is a good thing, and it's better for the market in general, as it provides options in quality versus cost. It gets to the point where the only differences are cost.

I'd like to point out that if you go back to the pre-C&D-letter Hock Shop posts on this very board, there were lots of people saying that Tom's merchandise was of somewhat lower quality than VG's.

Quote from: Rotorhead on April 03, 2010, 06:05:17 PMI'd like to point out that if you go back to the pre-C&D-letter Hock Shop posts on this very board, there were lots of people saying that Tom's merchandise was of somewhat lower quality than VG's.

So Tom was the only competition to Vanguard? Think about it.

Do we know what the actual percentage of profit CAP receives from the licensing agreement with VG, and how these monies are distributed? Were any payments made by Vanguard to CAP in advance to secure the licensing agreement, and how and where were those funds disposed of? Was there any attempt to put the contract out for bid, or was VG awarded a no-bid contract? Is this contract available for member review?

Major Lord

It is 6%.  This came from the former National Finance Officer.

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:21:12 PM
It is 6%.  This came from the former National Finance Officer.

Is that on top of the lump-sum donations, or is that where those donations are coming from?

There are lump sum donations?  I got the impression the checks they mentioned that were cut to CAP were the 6%.  You'd have to ask the Colonel, though.  He'd know.  That's why I asked him the percentage a while back.

So, is National Headquarters breaking their exclusive agreement (which I've never seen) with Vanguard?

(http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/museum.gif)
http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html (http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html)

This patch wasn't made by, nor is it being sold by, Vanguard Industries. Who's going to put the legal hammer down on this?

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
There are lump sum donations?  I got the impression the checks they mentioned that were cut to CAP were the 6%.  You'd have to ask the Colonel, though.  He'd know.  That's why I asked him the percentage a while back.

I'm referring to the articles about the VG donations that went to HMRS.

Ace - Absolutely.  Those CAP history people should suffer.   >:D

We are suffer Vanguard's exclusivity anyways...   >:(

Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2010, 06:41:36 PM

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
There are lump sum donations?  I got the impression the checks they mentioned that were cut to CAP were the 6%.  You'd have to ask the Colonel, though.  He'd know.  That's why I asked him the percentage a while back.

I'm referring to the articles about the VG donations that went to HMRS.

I thought they said the Vanguard royalties WERE going to those facilities.  You have to help me on this, I didn't follow it much.  I'm more annoyed by the fact that we BUY BACK items when we change uniforms.  Bad deal for Vanguard?  Of course not, but the question is why we change uniform items at random anyway and why our budget should take a hit for the National Board's games.

We may not even need to be asking where the money is going.  It's probably just going back to Vanguard for CAP to pay for its latest uniform change.

Quote from: alamrcn on April 03, 2010, 06:39:03 PM
So, is National Headquarters breaking their exclusive agreement (which I've never seen) with Vanguard?

(http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/museum.gif)
http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html (http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html)

This patch wasn't made by, nor is it being sold by, Vanguard Industries. Who's going to put the legal hammer down on this?

I'd imagine that the Vanguard contract is for uniform insignia. As that isn't, it probably doesn't even figure.

Lets send a C&D letter to Jim Shaw for selling a patch that says CAP on it. Or can anyone make that patch and sell it with permission of the Mosley family (who lives 6 miles from me)

The Patches shown do not have the seal, full organization name, or logo of CAP that I could see, so its probably not trademarked or violating the (alleged) exclusivity contract with VG. CAP would have a pretty hard time claiming exclusive use of the word CAP!

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on April 03, 2010, 09:27:02 PM
The Patches shown do not have the seal, full organization name, or logo of CAP that I could see, so its probably not trademarked or violating the (alleged) exclusivity contract with VG. CAP would have a pretty hard time claiming exclusive use of the word CAP!

Major Lord

Oh, but they do control rights to the abbreviation (and the law says they do).  Hence, why part of the products disappeared from the Hock included things like just the cutouts that said "CAP".

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
There are lump sum donations?  I got the impression the checks they mentioned that were cut to CAP were the 6%.  You'd have to ask the Colonel, though.  He'd know.  That's why I asked him the percentage a while back.

Hey guys.  I just was checking in after a nice day at the beach when I saw this tidbit.  I do not know of any other "donations" from VG.  I only know of the 6% fee we get.  That doesn't mean VG doesn't kick in extra.  I don't have that information.   Well, back to the beach..... :)

Quote from: alamrcn on April 03, 2010, 06:39:03 PM
So, is National Headquarters breaking their exclusive agreement (which I've never seen) with Vanguard?

(http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/museum.gif)
http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html (http://www.caphistory.org/museum_store_form.html)

This patch wasn't made by, nor is it being sold by, Vanguard Industries. Who's going to put the legal hammer down on this?

From your link: Features the WWII Coastal Patrol Base 3 insignia designed by CAP artist Zack Mosley. Used with permission of the Mosley estate.

CAP doesn't own, and they got permission. IMHO, all is good.

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:21:12 PM
It is 6%.  This came from the former National Finance Officer.

5% is a fairly typical licensing rate for these types of items, so 6% is like, 1 better.  See This Is Spinal Tap.  8) Looks like CAP got a decent deal with Vanguard re the royalty rate. 

I know it is hard for some to fathom, but as the intellectual property rights holder of an extensive collection of branded material, CAP has every legal right to enter into exclusive or non-exclusive licensing arrangements with others who wish to sell our branded merchandise. That means it can exclude some or all from selling it.  You're swimming upstream against about a century of intellectual property decisional law and statutory authority at the federal and state levels to argue otherwise. 

My biggest complaint with Vanguard is how long it takes to get my orders.  But the quality of the items I buy is good, better than the CAP branded materials I bought from the Hock pre-cease and desist.  What CAP does with the royalty income isn't Vanguard's issue, it's ours.   

Quote from: FW on April 03, 2010, 10:39:32 PM

Quote from: JC004 on April 03, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
There are lump sum donations?  I got the impression the checks they mentioned that were cut to CAP were the 6%.  You'd have to ask the Colonel, though.  He'd know.  That's why I asked him the percentage a while back.

Hey guys.  I just was checking in after a nice day at the beach when I saw this tidbit.  I do not know of any other "donations" from VG.  I only know of the 6% fee we get.  That doesn't mean VG doesn't kick in extra.  I don't have that information.   Well, back to the beach..... :)

Have fun at the beach 8)   I think what this basically means is that we the purchaser of items will basically be paying for the rebate, since it is likely that Vanguard will build in a percentage factor to at least cover the rebate % as well as meet a specific gross margin to match its' other revenue flows.

I handle coop advertising planning/monitoring for my employer and in every case where a particular vendor offers their own store for logo novelty/clothing items (usually a 50% reimbursement), the prices are higher than using our local novelty vendor.

So again, I realize there's a public relations "spin" on this by Vanguard (and Civil Air Patrol) but in reality the pricing structure is such that we the membership are paying for these rebates in the first place :-\
RM

Quote from: Ned on April 03, 2010, 04:55:07 AM

Quote from: Slim on April 03, 2010, 04:20:05 AM

So what if I can't buy a CDI badge anywhere other than Vanguard?

The problem is that if we continue to let the Hock and others skim off the cream (nametapes, etc), then VG cannot make a profit to subsidize the CDI badge at a reasonably affordable level.  The net result would be that VG would walk away from the contract and while we could buy nametapes at 1-800-nametaes, the CDI badge gets orphaned (along with most of the other badges, ribbons, and insignia.)

Although my service from VG has always been prompt, I understand that not everyone has had the same level of service.  Clearly there is room for improvement, but it makes no sense to toss the baby out with the bathwater.  The goal is to make sure all of our members can get the full range of insignia at reasonable prices.

Make sure you chain is made aware of VG service problems so they can be addressed.

I guess most of us would wonder what your definition of "prompt" service is ???   For me it means order received in morning (during a business day) is out the door shipped by the end of that day, or the latest the following business day.  For name tapes/tags 3 business days at max (means it ships the 3rd business day).

As far as the chain of command handling complaints.  My understanding is there's one staff member in the Membership Services department at National Hdqs that monitors the service level.  Funny but "service level" expectations have never been published to the general membership.  My guess is that in every instance The Hock Shop would exceed what wiggle room Vanguard has been given.

Frankly, name tags & name tapes can easily be purchased from local vendors that make it right on site while you wait.   The key issue though is to be sure they have the right color (PMS code).  Also the thread density (probably the wrong term) ideally will match the "Civil Air Patrol" tape as well as your name tape.  So probably a good idea to get both BDU/BBDU tapes done by the same vendor.
RM     

I have mixed feelings on thw whole issue.  While I understand the issue of protected material, trademarks, yada yada....I am also a firm believer in the free market.  YES, I am one of those people!! I believe competition makes for better products and better deals for consumers (for those from Rio Linda, that's us folks who buy the stuff). 

I am irked by being forced to go to a sole source (think health care). I personally have ordered from both and found Vanguard's service and attitude lacking but the quality of items good.  The Hock has always been  accomadating, reasonably priced, quick to ship and rectify any problems.  And the quality on a few items was better than Vanguard!

I'd much prefer NHQ let both sell the stuff and let them decide on how much of a kick back to make and set prices.  The market will decide who to patronize.  If Hock's quality is an issue, well then competetion should rectify that.  If Vanguard can't price stuff reasonably (Including shipping) then competetion will rectify that.

Let the buyer decide.

NOTE: This is an unbiased opinion as I don't have a dog in this fight!

Are you sure Civil Air Patrol "owns" the abbreviation CAP? It is in common use in the military as Combat Air Patrol. Go to almost any military site and look for CAP and it comes back as Combat Air Patrol. I even found that on one USAF site.

They  probably lay claim to the specific styling of the insignia - CAP in the block letters with a specific finish, etc. If some other organization with the initials CAP wanted to use an insignia with letters of a significantly different style, I don't think there would be a problem.


YMMV.

Here's something "interesting". AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service) is offering CAP Name Tags and Name Tapes through the Military Clothing Sales stores.

I wonder if National has the stones to send AAFES a C&D letter? >:D

Quote from: PHall on April 04, 2010, 11:13:12 PM
Here's something "interesting". AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service) is offering CAP Name Tags and Name Tapes through the Military Clothing Sales stores.

I wonder if National has the stones to send AAFES a C&D letter? >:D

It's been mentioned here before that AAFES procures all their insignia from Vanguard.

How do you compete with a company by selling their product?

They call that " Grey Market" goods.

Major Lord

Quote from: Ned
Remember, no contract lasts forever, and VG values their reputation.  And if they are truly making a decent profit, they will want to be in a position to rebid the contract.

Not if they keep pulling bonehead moves like this.

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs477.ash1/26141_10150168022155437_589680436_11854506_5772841_n.jpg)

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the members are tired of feeling ripped off, plain and simple. When Vanguard sells a short sleeve blues shirt for $44.00 that you can buy at an MCSS for under $15.00, you can darn well imagine the membership is going to call BS on that! Markup's like that are completely uncalled for.

Members are also tired of either waiting forever for their orders, or having their orders getting messed up because someone wasn't paying attention. Case in point; I placed an order for some items, they arrived relatively when expected and the order was complete and satisfactory...for me, but a few days later I get a box from Vanguard, with my name and address on the 'ship to:', but a different members name and address (other side of the country) in the 'bill to:'! I had to work with them to get this member his personalized CAP items!

It's this poor attention to detail AND more importantly CUSTOMER SERVICE that really wears on us when we are only left with pretty much ONE choice for our 'Come And Pay' accoutrement's.  :o

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 04, 2010, 11:50:17 PM

Quote from: PHall on April 04, 2010, 11:13:12 PM
Here's something "interesting". AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service) is offering CAP Name Tags and Name Tapes through the Military Clothing Sales stores.

I wonder if National has the stones to send AAFES a C&D letter? >:D

It's been mentioned here before that AAFES procures all their insignia from Vanguard.

How do you compete with a company by selling their product?

The last set of name tapes I got from AAFES (my ABU one's) didn't have anything on them that said Vanguard on them.
They did come from San Antonio though.

Quote from: Lancer on April 05, 2010, 12:08:39 AM
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the members are tired of feeling ripped off, plain and simple. When Vanguard sells a short sleeve blues shirt for $44.00 that you can buy at an MCSS for under $15.00, you can darn well imagine the membership is going to call BS on that!

LOL - then the membership needs to be buying it at a MCSS.  I always bought the higher quality shirts instead of the issue quality shirts.  It cost more but was worth it.

Quote from: Lancer on April 05, 2010, 12:08:39 AM
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the members are tired of feeling ripped off, plain and simple. When Vanguard sells a short sleeve blues shirt for $44.00 that you can buy at an MCSS for under $15.00, you can darn well imagine the membership is going to call BS on that! Markup's like that are completely uncalled for.

There's no reason members should be buying their shirts from VG, if they can't be bothered to use AAFES, or call an MCSS, then Kay-Sarah-Sarah.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 05, 2010, 01:46:24 AM
There's no reason members should be buying their shirts from VG, if they can't be bothered to use AAFES, or call an MCSS, then Kay-Sarah-Sarah.

Right, who cares about those new members who were never in the military who don't know about these outlets, or the parents of new cadets who just get blindly steered into Vanguard being their only source. Yeah, 'Que Sera Sera'.  ::)

Quote from: Lancer on April 05, 2010, 01:59:12 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 05, 2010, 01:46:24 AM
There's no reason members should be buying their shirts from VG, if they can't be bothered to use AAFES, or call an MCSS, then Kay-Sarah-Sarah.

Right, who cares about those new members who were never in the military who don't know about these outlets, or the parents of new cadets who just get blindly steered into Vanguard being their only source. Yeah, 'Que Sera Sera'.  ::)

The failure of a member's commander to properly inform him of the correct place to shop is not the fault of anyone but the commander.
AAFES is plenty prominent in publications and should not be the secret that is (for some reason is).

There are plenty of people in CAP who joined and left thinking the Hock was the official uniform source.

The shirt offering from Vanguard looks very much like it's the Propper branded one, and that mark-up isn't much different than MCSS.  They don't show the label information, but just looking at it, it does not look like DSCP.

As for the helicopter.. d'oh!

Quote from: Ned on April 02, 2010, 08:47:18 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on April 02, 2010, 08:10:32 PMThe poor ethics come from NHQ as well for setting this up in the first place. For a non-profit they are pretty greedy. If they were smart they would have opened the licensing up to anyone that can meet an NHQ spec and charge a percentage or flat fee. The unethical action is to set up a monopoly relationship at the expense of the members.

Really?  Why do you say that?


Now that you have directly accused our volunteer leaders of being greedy and unethical, perhaps you'd like to share exactly what code of eithics you are speaking about and how this contract violates it.

(You were speaking directly about an ethical violation, right?  IOW, a clear and direct violation of a given code of ethics or codified set of norms, correct?)

Remember, the whole point of the VG contract is to provide a service to our members that NHQ tried for years to provide, but ultimately failed.  The VG contract has - and will continue to -save thousands of dollars of dues that otherwise went down the drain as we tried to come up with an workable model (Bookstore, Capmart, etc) at NHQ.

Sure, 1-800-nametapes could sell CAP nametapes for less than VG.  But try buing a master CDI badge from them.  VG's contract requires them to produce all current authorized insignia, which they do.

VG's contract does not last forever, and will be subject to competitive bidding for renewal.  Tom (and anyone else) will be free to bid. 

Just like last time.

But seriously, before you go publicly accusing our leadership of greed and ethical violations, please be able to lay out specifically what ethics were violated and how.

No wonder it is hard to find top-notch people to serve as our volunteer leaders, when they are subject to this sort of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

Sir, I humbly ask you look for Cloth Pre-solo wings on VG's website in regards to the boldfaced section.

I certainly never found them there, I had to get them from the Hock.


I also had to "make" a pre-solo metal one from a solo one.. The Good thing about that was I could make it back into the "Prop'er" thing when the time came. Solder, and a polishing tip on a Dremel... :)  and heated it back up again and knocked it all off when I needed to expose the propeller..

I always assumed the Pre-Solo guys didn't wear the cloth wings because unlike the metal ones, they're much more distinctive. On the metal, you really can't tell the difference between the two until you are fairly close.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/Falcon0116/CIMG8310.jpg),(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/Falcon0116/CIMG8288.jpg),(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/Falcon0116/CIMG8255.jpg),(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/Falcon0116/CIMG8286.jpg)


some of us are a wee bit shameless lol

^^^Just sad. 

hey i worked hard for my wings, and personal feelings aside they are authorized and I'm going to wear them, had I not been weathered out of my solo this wouldn't be a problem

Hey, you earned it, stitch 'em on!

...but did you work as hard to find the right Lt's bars? ;-)

... I see metal. ;)

check the first pick,

the metal was on for about two weeks when i was in membership limbo going form being listed as a C/Lt.Col a week after is 21, to being a senior member without grade, to finally being a 1st LT

You could not get the right stuff before you turned 21?....vanguard sells 1s Lt bars.

Quote from: Dragon 3-2 on April 19, 2010, 04:57:01 AM
check the first pick,

the metal was on for about two weeks when i was in membership limbo going form being listed as a C/Lt.Col a week after is 21, to being a senior member without grade, to finally being a 1st LT

During that period you were not in "limbo", you were a SMWOG, and there was no requirement whatsoever that you be promoted.  Were I your CC and saw the postings you made here and elsewhere showing yourself as a 1st Lt. before the transition was complete and paperwork processed, the delay would have been longer.

Of course you didn't actually ever wear those metal bars, you just put them on to "see what they looked like"...

You ironed the buttons!  Makes the BDU look bad...

mmmmmmmm... doughnuts..

Topic?   :P

Quote from: lordmonar on April 19, 2010, 01:17:30 PM
You could not get the right stuff before you turned 21?....vanguard sells 1s Lt bars.

between 300 bucks to fix my car, and not being paid for two weeks because of CAP related days off, and a bunch of other things going on in my non-cap life... the $198 plus SH it cost me to shift all of my uniforms over to senior side couldn't be shelled out in time.

as for the metal they were used for my promotion ceremony a week after my birthday ( meetings on Tuesdays, bday was on a Friday) and for a drill team practice the Saturday after my birthday, while I turned my other two blouses over to the seamstress to be updated. I full expected my paperwork to be signed off in time and not to have to go into the SMWOG pool ( dealing with NHQ over my C/Capt and C/LtC promotions should have warned me otherwise ) anyway it wasnt until I got home from my promotional meeting that I saw the mistake on eServices, for the duration of the Drill team practice I was still a C/LTC on eServices ( and no I did not want to run the risk of a CPPT issue be wearing my diamonds down there) any way I simply switched to wearing my AF ROTC uniform until my promotion went thru ( not cutting those freshly sewn on bars after spending money to get them done).

for the month between my 21st Bday and my promotion to 1st LT and with the exception of the DT practice, I pretty much just did my normal  squadron meetings, rather then my usual visitation tour to other units during the week.

^Topic.

So you actually wore that out in public and you're trying to justify it by saying you couldn't afford $ 3.00 worth of insignia and $ .25 worth of thread?

We don't wear metal grade on USAF-style uniforms, PERIOD.

Senior members in CAP do not wear the uniform of another service as a substitute either.

You want to know why we have so many challenges with our uniforms in CAP?  Because there's always somebody who thinks they have a
double-special exception problem and its OK to break the rules.

Yeah, I know - topic...

Going back on topic, I really am quite sad to see theHock unable to sell CAP specific items. Although I rarely did order from them, I did order my first set of BDUs in that package they had that sold everything a new cadet needed, something that Vanguard never did. I also saw right before the CD letter, that theHock was offering a sewing service to those that never learned how to sew themselves, even when they've been in CAP for many years.


[Off-topic (PM response)] Dragon, what did you spend $198 + Shipping on to convert to senior?

Quote from: Eclipse on April 20, 2010, 03:56:48 AM
So you actually wore that out in public and you're trying to justify it by saying you couldn't afford $ 3.00 worth of insignia and $ .25 worth of thread?

We don't wear metal grade on USAF-style uniforms, PERIOD.

Senior members in CAP do not wear the uniform of another service as a substitute either.

You want to know why we have so many challenges with our uniforms in CAP?  Because there's always somebody who thinks they have a
double-special exception problem and its OK to break the rules.

Yeah, I know - topic...

It was a temporary fix, the only place I wore it was the hangar the drill team practices in and the trip to and from the hangar, no stops until I got home and changed, then again after I was promoted and switched my metal diamonds for the bars, after that from January 20th -February 18th, I did not wear any CAP uniforms, instead i wore my AF ROTC BDU's which I retired in favor of ABU's at the start of the semester. Do I think I'm special...no....did I break a rule... yes....was there anything I could do about it...no. and before you get into the cost, please not i make at most a hundred bucks a week, working only on weekends, and since i choose to sacrifice two of those weekends to CAP... i didn't have any cash to fork over to Vanguard or the local cleaners
you ask anyone that knows me, and they will assure you when I am up for promotion...my uniform is ready with the appropriate insignia usually before Ive finished taking the test required, since I have at least two sets of Blues, and Flight suit or three sets BDU's ready to where at any time.

in any case, all of my uniforms except for my flight suits are 39-1, the Hock being out of plastic rank was my only hang up on that, haven't touched them since...are the metal ranks pinned on them in place of the plastic...you bet; as i said before... not wearing them so its a non-issue

Apparently a word to the wise isn't sufficient.  Lock.  ::)