-
#820
by
jongoff
on 18 Mar, 2007 05:13
-
Bombay,
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. ITAR issues are serious. As in you can get your backside thrown in jail and your company fined a whole bunch of money serious. I'm sure that it was convenient for them to have those pictures removed, but they had a legal obligation to do something. ITAR is not their fault, get over it.
As for the news reports, once again, I think you're taking offense where none was intended.
~Jon
-
#821
by
Nick L.
on 18 Mar, 2007 15:19
-
bombay - 17/3/2007 11:31 PM
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
Since when has the media ever been accurate about something regarding spaceflight? The AP writer probably just took it off the ULA site without checking the facts first. Can't blame ULA for that.
Look where that article is coming from. It's an Alabama site; of course they'd want to say that even though it's not true. ULA can't control that.
You don't know that ULA hasn't sent a memo to those employees congratulating them/apologizing for the AP screwup. If it was inter-company like you said, then we on the outside would never know it even existed.
ULA is here. Get over it.
-
#822
by
Kayla
on 18 Mar, 2007 17:12
-
I have to admit I find it amazing how much energy has been poured into this thread, and so much of it is negative! The market place drove this consolidation. The stretch out of DoD launches, the drastic reduction in world wide commercial launches and NASA's decision to build its own rocket despite the world wide glut forced this formation. I suggest that those of you complaigning about ULA would be better served encouraging NASA to stop purchasing ISS servicing over seas, to actually put out an ISS servicing RFP to bring these dollars and this capability home. NASA is gutting science and Orion's schedule to keep ARES I on track for a 2015 ILC. ULA or not ULA is a nit compared to what else is happening in our industry.
-
#823
by
ULAwantabe
on 19 Mar, 2007 15:40
-
Kayla,
Did you know that there is a ARES I thread on this forum? I think you took a wrong turn. See ya!
-
#824
by
Dexter
on 21 Mar, 2007 03:10
-
Kayla - 18/3/2007 1:12 PM
I have to admit I find it amazing how much energy has been poured into this thread, and so much of it is negative! The market place drove this consolidation. The stretch out of DoD launches, the drastic reduction in world wide commercial launches and NASA's decision to build its own rocket despite the world wide glut forced this formation. I suggest that those of you complaigning about ULA would be better served encouraging NASA to stop purchasing ISS servicing over seas, to actually put out an ISS servicing RFP to bring these dollars and this capability home. NASA is gutting science and Orion's schedule to keep ARES I on track for a 2015 ILC. ULA or not ULA is a nit compared to what else is happening in our industry.
I don't understand how you can argue for domestic ISS servicing and also be a proponent of the RD-180 engined Atlas V.
As for negativity, the rest of this board is riddled with anti-Ares 1 or anti EELV viewpoints. This is supposed to be a forum where people should be able to express their opinions and even back them up with evidence.
I guess if you don't agree with someone, you would call that negativity.
-
#825
by
Dexter
on 21 Mar, 2007 03:17
-
Nick L. - 18/3/2007 11:19 AM
bombay - 17/3/2007 11:31 PM
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-27/117344...
Granted, the ULA can't control everything the media writes, but would it have been so beneath ULA management to inform the Denver and San Diego employees by way of an intercompany memo of the error and to offer appreciation where appreciation was due? What a sorry bunch!!!
Since when has the media ever been accurate about something regarding spaceflight? The AP writer probably just took it off the ULA site without checking the facts first. Can't blame ULA for that.
Look where that article is coming from. It's an Alabama site; of course they'd want to say that even though it's not true. ULA can't control that.
You don't know that ULA hasn't sent a memo to those employees congratulating them/apologizing for the AP screwup. If it was inter-company like you said, then we on the outside would never know it even existed.
ULA is here. Get over it.
Can blame ULA for putting erroneous comments on their website.
Would not characterize this as an AP screwup, just lazy or opportunistic journalism.
-
#826
by
skywalker
on 22 Mar, 2007 00:40
-
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
Okay ULA is here, but does that mean that business smarts goes out the window. Consolidation should be done smartly not blindly. The move from HB to Denver is a done deal, but the rest (SD, Denver, Harlingen) should be studied and take into account RISK (which includes loss of key people). It seems that Denver to Decatur is a done deal so that leaves three manufacturing plants. What about Denver Booster to Decatur and Denver Centaur to San Diego, and Harlingen to Decatur. What is the reason to move to Decatur and not move Harlingen? Here are the reasons:
1) Boeing promised Alabama Governor jobs, with a large kick back in taxes, this is not conspiracy it is done all the time in all states. Who knew that the rival rocket maker deal would screw the LM people in Denver and San Diego?
2) It was stated from the begining Denver and SD to Decatur and they do not want to loose face, therefore they (the powers to be) will make the trades or studies or whatever look like it is a good business decission to move, low estimates from a sole source what ever it takes. This also is not conspiracy it is what the people in charge want.
3) Harlingen is in Texas and where is the President from, nuff said. No conspiracy just politics.
Problems: I have heard that the number of jobs is something like 3000 and the kickback was 80 million, well when all the dust settles I doubt that there will be 3000 employees that can move to Decatur even if you include the people from Denver and San Diego that will move, Harlingen, Engineering, and Management that are not planned to move. The only people that ULA has that can not / will not ever move are the Cape and Vandyland people. There were 4000 approx in ULA on day 1, 933 in HB none of those are planned to be in Decatur that leaves 3100, Harlingen, and the two launch sites, and Denver people not planned to be moved make a signifcant amount, there is just under 300 between SD and Denver that are planned on moving and 600+ in Decatur now, I just do not see the 3000 goal being met.
-
#827
by
Dexter
on 23 Mar, 2007 21:39
-
skywalker - 21/3/2007 8:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
20% of the worker bees! 1/2 with less than 2 years of experience.
That means only 10% of the workers, technical people, etc... have more than two years experience.
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
-
#828
by
ULAwantabe
on 23 Mar, 2007 22:32
-
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? I would think it is good that they will have an opportunity to expand their knowledge with the experience from a variety of rocket systems under their belt, instead of just Atlas. What are the negatives preventing Atlas folks from volunteering? Do they need to move away from Denver? Or is it simply the reality that people feel secure in their current jobs and look at a move to Delta with increased risk?
-
#829
by
McDew
on 24 Mar, 2007 00:26
-
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 6:32 PM
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? QUOTE]
Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to asimulate before they can play nice.
-
#830
by
ULAwantabe
on 24 Mar, 2007 01:36
-
McDew,
It is interesting how you can say that they do not like each other when I would think that they do not know each other until after the HB --> Denver move takes place. My memories of the Atlas team are that the people are the nicest folks one could ever wish to work with. I would think that the HB folks would be excited about merging into their team. Well I only speak from the engineers perspective, and maybe my viewpoint is too idealistic.
It is interesting that with over 500 positions now posted on the ULA careers page that the true merge as far as engineering will be ATLAS + DELTA + NEW HIRES. The new variety of mix should change the skill set of ULA for the better by introducing a greater variety of skills into the ULA work force.
-
#831
by
WHAP
on 24 Mar, 2007 01:55
-
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta, and that only 10% of non-management employees will have more than 2 years experience? The remaining non-mgt Delta employees will be new hires with no experience at all? I'm not sure I'm buying it, but some people are...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
-
#832
by
McDew
on 24 Mar, 2007 05:02
-
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 9:36 PM
McDew,
It is interesting how you can say that they do not like each other when I would think that they do not know each other until after the HB --> Denver move takes place.
I believe you just made my point. The Delta program will remain to be the evil empire until they move to Denver.
-
#833
by
Dexter
on 24 Mar, 2007 05:23
-
WHAP - 23/3/2007 9:55 PM
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
Well here we are along with ULA and we are getting over it, just like a few of you want us to do.
The numbers for the move from HB to Denver are in and 40-43% overall with 20% of the worker bee's and 1/2 of those with less than 2yrs experience. Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram, maybe they will draw straws.
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta, and that only 10% of non-management employees will have more than 2 years experience? The remaining non-mgt Delta employees will be new hires with no experience at all? I'm not sure I'm buying it, but some people are...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
Well, I am definitely buying it because it is what I predicted and others here have as well.
Here is some coroborating evidence to support my opinion;
https://recruiter.kenexa.com/ula/cc/CCJobResultsAction.ss?command=MoveToPageLook at how many job postings there are. 514 to be exact. Lots of technical engineering positions if I read this right. What do you suppose instigated such a large amount of job reqs?
ULA was supposed to save $150 million per year as initially advertised. That comes from combining the programs and creating "synergy" which results in reduced numbers of employees, ususally in the upper management ranks.
But there sure seems to be a lot of worker bees in the postings.
-
#834
by
skywalker
on 24 Mar, 2007 06:31
-
WHAP - 23/3/2007 9:55 PM
skywalker - 21/3/2007 7:40 PM
...Additionally none (could be a slight undercount) of the existing Denver Atlas folks are jumping ship to the Delta porgram....
So you're saying that no Atlas employees will move to Delta...
dexter - 23/3/2007 4:39 PM
Does this concern anyone? or is this just a "little blip"?
It also sounds like the Atlas people are not interested in backfilling this gap.
I did say "none (could be a slight undercount)" which means a few might jump ship, but that is yet to be seen.
McDew - 23/3/2007 8:26 PM
ULAwantabe - 23/3/2007 6:32 PM
What would be the reason why Atlas people do not want to move to the Delta programs? QUOTE]
Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to asimulate before they can play nice.
I do not see it as "I don't like you because you are a Delta employee". Remember these are two rival programs each thinks their program is better than the other or at least equal. More info there were several people that went to McDac (which became Boeing Delta) from GD (which became LM Atlas) and so some of the people may have actually worked together on Atlas when it was with GD. There was a problem when San Diego People moved to Denver, but that was a different situation in that there always seemed to be an attitude of We (Martin) bought You (GD) therefore We are better, and to be quite honest there is still some of that. You can see it in this and other threads Atlas v Titan. I do not see that same thing happening because both groups (Atlas and Delta workerbees) have a common problem, how they were #$%^&@ by the formation of ULA, pension, being forced to move, etc...
I think the #1 reason people will not move from Atlas to Delta would be pride in the program they currently work for, Atlas people think their program is better than Delta so why would they work for the Delta / inferior program.
-
#835
by
ULAwantabe
on 24 Mar, 2007 15:30
-
skywalker,
I do not know how my quote got changed since it was not me that said "Number 1 reason would be is that they still don't like each other. They will need a few years to assimilate before they can play nice".
My guess is that the ULA employees will all feel as one team once the moves of HB folks to Denver is completed. After all everybody is considered a new ULA employee now.
It would not surprise me if the ULA Atlas and Delta managers are proposing at this very moment a reorganized staffing of both Atlas and Delta with existing employees. I have noticed that ULA is not staffing up with new hire engineers very quickly, and I would think that new hire staffing will ramp up quickly after the current employees have been given their new permanent assignments.
-
#836
by
skywalker
on 24 Mar, 2007 17:29
-
ULAwantabe,
Sorry about that I guess it was McDew that said that, I can not edit it to correct the problem.
Anyway I agree with your latest comment management will need to do something about the staffing issues. Again I would like to say that I do not think the differences between Delta and Atlas will be nearly as bad as Martin and GD was/is, simply because they have common problems.
-
#837
by
skywalker
on 24 Mar, 2007 17:53
-
Consolidation issues are a plenty, but I think the employees getting along will be the least of the issues. I think first and formost is: are the employees affected by proposed consolidation going to simply accept what management says? Will they believe the trades that the company puts forth? I know that if what is put forth is truely best for the company the employees would be more willing to accept it, but if it is fudged (just to move one place to another because they want to) there will not be a good following. I know there are laws, and I seriously doubt any will be broken or covered up, but ethics might be in trouble.
-
#838
by
ULAwantabe
on 24 Mar, 2007 17:54
-
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a week’s vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
-
#839
by
Jim
on 24 Mar, 2007 18:40
-
ULAwantabe - 24/3/2007 2:54 PM
Skywalker,
No problem on the quote since these things happen.
For me when GD moved to Denver they reset our retirement benefits to zero, and that was enough for me as a young engineer to see no benefit to move (having already received other San Diego job offers at the time).
In my opinion ULA would be a fantastic place to work, and before attempting to send in my resume to ULA, I spent a weeks vacation in Littleton looking at housing prices with a realtor, and studying the area. In my opinion, Littleton is a fantastic place to raise a family, relatively low cost of housing compared to California, and good schools, nice people, pretty scenery, and less taxes. The only two negatives are (IMHO) is needing a winter coat four months / year, and no ocean. I say not a problem for me.
Now the only question I have is if ULA will ramp up hiring before the kids go back to school in August. Well they have about five months to prove that they are serious about ramping up hiring.
Remember. ULA won't be in Littleton. They have leased a building near Centennial Airport