Please note the term SNCO (ATC) has gone we are all Sgt xxxx RAFAC or Flying Officer xxxc RAFAC
Lol! We are still trying to eliminate the use of AWO/ASgt/AFS…
Not according to what I’ve been recently told- apparently the use of ‘ATC’ by Adult Staff as an alternative formation identifier (to RAFAC) is still available.
This information surprised me greatly, but it was confidently-asserted from a senior source that I must place my trust in.
Does it really matter?
At the end of the day, it gets dark…
Though when people use the hybrid of Sgt (RAFAC) J Bloggs or Sgt RAFAC Bloggs, I get a twitch
Topic. Think of it. Please.
Yes, CD are the “approved seller” by HQAC. But as you also suggested, they wouldn’t sell the new design until their current stock has gone…
Look at what happened with the slides with the smaller text… (Though, they were of the original design from HQAC!)
If CD are going to be the approved supplier we should get a substantial discount and like with the new DofE card, the ATC gets a donation. I couldn’t believe that I can get 15% off the Go Outdoors card price and the DofE get a donation, doesn’t matter how much, ‘every little helps’. Could the person who organised that for the DofE get a job in HQAC as they seem to understand how business works, unlike the ex-RAF types we get.
I’m hoping the DofE start getting into other high street things, like pizza. What better than after an exped a meal of pizza and drinks, at a nice discount!!
I think they might… The new/correct design for GPJ & Gortex is supposedly going to be white/silver text.
Personnel will not be permitted to wear the current Cadet Direct black text versions so I fancy that when they discover they are not selling any of those anymore they’ll roll out the correct version - and curse themselves for jumping the gun yet again.
They won’t worry about “current stock” of a different design; they’ll supply what they can sell.
CD seem to have a business model which doesn’t concern itself as to whether a design is correct or not, instead relying on foolish, ignorant or obstinate persons buying what they like.
We couldn’t force them to stop selling the first-draft slides with the too-small text and had to bend our rules to suit. I expect they will continue to sell whatever people will buy.
Because that’s how business works… if I owned a business I wouldn’t give a hoot what was technically allowed for a member of an organisation to wear. I’d care if I could sell it.
Which is why it was a mistake for us to get into bed with them.
Unfortunately they had a plan and a design and a supplier which is more than could be said of HQAC!
But then as I suggest go down the DofE route and exert some control over things.
The other solution is that HQAC get their finger out, make and supply them FOC and kill CDs market. This is a common practice in the commercial world. I’d bet good money if there was another supplier out there and doing this, CD would have to reduce costs.
Neither of these is likely to happen, especially the second option. They’ve had this option already and failed miserably on a monumental scale. Why do we seem to get people who couldn’t organise getting a sausage roll in Greggs?
There is another option, someone in HQAC or a good friend of HQACs has a vested interest in CD, so HQAC just sit there making a noise every so often, but with no conviction to do anything.
i don’t think this is necessarily the issue - someone somewhere has to make them, and why go out and tender contracts when CD have a supply chain in place?
the error is allowing CD free reign to sell these to the market.
has there been a diktat from HQAC indicating a maximum price CD can sell these at? or do they have freedom to do as they please?
if the latter then as people identify, its their business let them get on with it. I see it locally with friends complaining one one store sells the approved school uniform/school sports kit - they have a monopoly and utilise the advantage by rinsing it for all its worth.
however it was a shrewd move by HQAC to allow CD to sell these - there is no money to dish these out FOC to the CFAV.
Being a bespoke design they will be a higher unit cost than what we used to be issued (given these were RAF slides we then modified with pins)
there would be uproar if HQAC starting charging the volunteer for uniform items they are expected to wear - so dodge that bullet and put the cost (and complexity of supply) to a commercial “partner” such as CD pleases everyone at HQAC
I don’t see any evidence of CD being a commercial partner, unless by this you mean someone within the Corps’ hierarchy getting a sweetener for leaving doors open. When there is a monopoly position like CD have you have to smell a rat. There are plenty of other businesses out there who could supply these as well as CD.
There would be money to make these FOC if they wanted and they wanted all this more than anyone out here in volunteer land. A modicum of intelligence could have been used and made it work. But again doing things for the wrong reasons and having too many irons in the fire in terms of changes, meant control was lost of all things.
To me the whole thing smacks of people who haven’t got a clue and who are unwilling to seek advice from those who do.
I and I’m sure many other volunteers could have immediately pointed out the flaws in the design of the new slides (in particular the SNCO/WO - custom woven designs) and in approaching a third party reseller like CD to supply them; and could further have offered suggestions on how to reduce the costs and whom to approach (and avoid) for manufacture.
I can’t imagine for a moment that these people are unaware or forget that amongst the volunteers we have a wealth of experience in all sorts of industries which far outweighs their own limited knowledge… They just choose to ignore it assuming that they know best. Then it’s us volunteers who have to foot the hugely-overpriced bill.
CCF RAFAC officers have been issued with RAFAC MTP rank slides by CTT Sgt
How the hell did he get them?
(or do you mean TEST?)
This CCF Officer hasn’t been.