Multi-Service -or- Credit Card

[Flying Pig]

What CAP CAN AND NEEDS to do is get each plane a Multi Service gas card or credit card assigned to it in the name of the Sq Commander or Aircraft Manager and stop with the out of pocket reimbursements.  They are already reimbursing us based on current documentation, just use that SAME system to justify expenses on the card.  Any fraud would be detected in the same manner as someone attempting to submit a false 108.  I personally do not use credit cards, yes, my choice, but I don't.  So I don't have a "CAP Only" card.  Maybe Im just weird.   CAP has been around 65 years, its time we explore this and get it done.  Any CAP reimbursable expense should be able to be put on a card, that includes any hotels, meals, etc..  Then the AF reimburses CAP, not the member.  Its not going to cause any added work beyond what it takes to sit around at a Wing finance meeting and write out checks and mail them.  What about just a Multi Service for fuel on AF missions.  That should be a no brainer.

Am I way off base?

[NC Hokie]

Add ground vehicles to this and I'm with you.  Floating loans to CAP, Inc. to do anything of substance got old a long, long time ago for me.

[jeders]

I thought that the planes and vans already had credit cards. Or is that just TXWG?

[NC Hokie]

I thought that the planes and vans already had credit cards. Or is that just TXWG?

It's wing-specific.  Since wing banker started out as a wing-specific program, we can always hope that National sees what a good thing you have in Texas and then decides to give it to the rest of us.

Okay, you guys can stop laughing now. 

[sardak]

I thought that the planes and vans already had credit cards. Or is that just TXWG?

COWG also has a credit card assigned to each aircraft and vehicle. There are places though, that won't accept the Multi-Service card.

Mike

[Flying Pig]

I thought that the planes and vans already had credit cards. Or is that just TXWG?

COWG also has a credit card assigned to each aircraft and vehicle. There are places though, that won't accept the Multi-Service card.

Mike

That is true, but most places will.  I fly all over the western US with a multi service and have only encountered a few places that dont.  And those have been the ones that ONLY accept cash Visa or Mastercard.  So why is CAWG behind the 8 ball? 

[SarDragon]

Add ground vehicles to this and I'm with you.  Floating loans to CAP, Inc. to do anything of substance got old a long, long time ago for me.

Oh, don'tcha know it!

I just got paid in January for a 108 that was submitted in Sep '09. Yes, '09. The strange part was that I submitted two 108s at the same, and the other one got paid in less than a month.

[JeffDG]

It seems there are a number of Wings who have done this.

Why, exactly, does this need to be a "national" solution?  Have a problem with your wing, take it up with your wing.

[a2capt]

Am I way off base?

Nope, not at all. Just to the north side of the airport. 

[Flying Pig]

It seems there are a number of Wings who have done this.

Why, exactly, does this need to be a "national" solution?  Have a problem with your wing, take it up with your wing.

No, it doesnt need to be a National solution, but I cant imagine why any Wing wouldnt want it?  My issue is CAWG WONT do it.  So taking it up with my Wing seems to be a dead end.

[Al Sayre]

So next time you land after a AFAM call up the Wing Commander and tell him his airplane is out of gas and you can't afford to front the Air Force $200 to fill it up.  If all the MP's start doing that they'll figure it out pretty quick.   

I can see not putting them in van's where they can be stolen or misused fairly easily, but I can't see asking the MP's and/aircrews to pay for mission fuel and then pray for reimbursement.  At very least issue the cards to the IC's so they can take care of it.  JMHO

[Spaceman3750]

So next time you land after a AFAM call up the Wing Commander and tell him his airplane is out of gas and you can't afford to front the Air Force $200 to fill it up.  If all the MP's start doing that they'll figure it out pretty quick.   

I can see not putting them in van's where they can be stolen or misused fairly easily, but I can't see asking the MP's and/aircrews to pay for mission fuel and then pray for reimbursement.  At very least issue the cards to the IC's so they can take care of it.  JMHO

So GTLs are still stuck paying $80 to fill the 15pax because they are more likely to abuse the cards than the pilots? Sounds a bit holier than thou to me.

[Eclipse]

My wing has credit cards in the aircraft (or open accounts with the FBO's where the planes are stationed).  You fly , you get a bill from wing.

On the other hand, most use of ground vehicles is member-sponsored, so I don't see the need.

No one forces anyone to front money for CAP.

[arajca]

On the other hand, most use of ground vehicles is member-sponsored, so I don't see the need.

No one forces anyone to front money for CAP.

So, your members are using CAP vehicles for non-CAP purposes? Using a CAP vehicle for a CAP function does not make it member sponsored, but you say members should front the money for that in direct contradiction to your last line.

[Eclipse]

On the other hand, most use of ground vehicles is member-sponsored, so I don't see the need.

No one forces anyone to front money for CAP.

So, your members are using CAP vehicles for non-CAP purposes? Using a CAP vehicle for a CAP function does not make it member sponsored, but you say members should front the money for that in direct contradiction to your last line.

Noooo....    ((*sigh*))

It goes without saying that COV's are only used for CAP business, but that doesn't mean CAP, Inc. is going to pay for that gas.  Most vehicle use is non-reimbursible - unit trips, local training, transport of members to official functions, encampments, etc.  None of that would be paid for by the respective wing, necessarily.

Whether it is "pass-the-hat" at the time of the ride, fees built into the activity, or unit funds, there's no need to involve wing, or use a wing credit card - just make sure the tank is full when you shut down.

And again, no one forces anyone to incur expenses on behalf of CAP, certainly not if there is a concern about reimbursement or it causes a financial hardship.  "No one else will do it, so I had to." does not equal "forced".

It is amazing what people will do when they realize "the other guy" isn't going to pony up anymore.

[arajca]

How about the "If I don't the mission will not get accomplished". BTDT

Why should a member pay for an encampment to use a vehicle?

[Eclipse]

How about the "If I don't the mission will not get accomplished". BTDT

Then it is time for someone to re-evaluate the mission.  Far too many of our members incur cost or effort in a vacuum and then complain about it later.  When a few missions start falling by the wayside, things change.

Why should a member pay for an encampment to use a vehicle?

That depends on whether the encampment is using the vehicle for the activity and requested that it be there.  Any number of units use their
assigned vehicle to transport cadets to/from the activity.  That is a "nice-to-have" for them, but the fuel cost is not the responsibility of the activity.  Pass the hat with the cadets who got the ride or look to budgeted unit funds.

If the vehicle is used during and for the activity with prior approval, then it is reasonable to expect the encampment to cover the cost of that part of the fuel use.

But driving a COV to the activity as your transport vehicle, parking it for the duration, and putting in a reimbursement request?  No.

We all have to get there, and most will use a POV with no reimbursement.

[jayleswo]

What CAP CAN AND NEEDS to do is get each plane a Multi Service gas card or credit card assigned to it in the name of the Sq Commander or Aircraft Manager and stop with the out of pocket reimbursements. 

I spent a LOT of of time looking into the AIR Card from MultiService Corp and the DLA recently. I spoke with and exchanged numerous emails with one of their personnel and CAP is on their list of authorized agencies and eligible for Federal/State pricing (but not Military pricing). But there are numerous issues: CAP would pay a pre-negotiated monthly rate for fuel which is significantly higher than the already inflated SS price for 100LL at my home airport. The price for 100LL isn't so good as the military just isn't that big a user of it. Anyway, the wing would have to designate an Accountable Official (AO) to review the monthly statement they would receive for fuel purchases for all the aircraft in the wing (27 or so in our case) and reconcile each individual transaction against a CAPF 108/WMIRS sortie for accuracy - a very time consuming task - then authorize payment which would need to go thru the Finance Committee each time as it would invariably exceed the limit required for Finance Committee approval. USAF doesn't accept Level 3 transaction data on statements for CAP mission reimbursements, so receipts would need to be included (as we do now) on the CAPF 108's - many of which might not be submitted since the member isn't out of pocket on the expense. So, the AO would need to hunt down missing 108's and receipts. The AIR Card could be used only for fuel and lubricants and a few other items (such as Oxygen) but not for lodging which we reimburse for our CD missions. Then there are the potential abuses, inadvertent or intentional, to contend with. Ultimately, there is just way too much workload centralized at the wing level for this to be doable IMHO.

So, individual credit cards issued by a Bank to each unit might be a better solution. That way the unit commander, finance officer and aircraft/vehicle manager can review and manage the mission related expenses for their own unit, pay the statement out of unit funds and collect money from the wing for mission reimbursements. Assuming the member submitting the F108 listed the unit vs themselves (by mistake) as the person to reimburse. And assuming the unit has the financial resources to front the money to the credit card company.

My opinion - it creates a lot more problems than it solves but if you want to try it then feel free to explore this with your Group and Wing FM first. Rob, feel free to PM me and we can chat. -- John

[Spaceman3750]

What about P-cards. Lots of organizations are already using these. They're a Visa or MasterCard issued in the name of the primary user. We could account for them using a F108 or WMIRS sortie.

[RADIOMAN015]

Add ground vehicles to this and I'm with you.  Floating loans to CAP, Inc. to do anything of substance got old a long, long time ago for me.

Well that's the way CAP wants it.  The more paperwork the better.  I know my employer recently went to fleet cards for all the vehicles, each individual has a separate pin # they use so they know who bought the gas, etc.  Pretty simple rather than reimbursing each employee submitting a request for gas.  Seems to work well since the statement can be sorted by location and individual.

Last time I looked all CAP vehicles & aircraft are owned by the wing anyways (who can reassign at will) so it stands to reason they should be handling the expenses and not the local unit  -- BUT when required back bill the unit for appropriate expenses.
RM