-
#20
by
john smith 19
on 12 Aug, 2014 23:19
-
Keeping in mind that Elon Musk is not someone that came from a deep background in rockets, it begs the question of whether someone with a deep background in rockets provides some form of an advantage?
Very good question.
-
#21
by
QuantumG
on 12 Aug, 2014 23:56
-
-
#22
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 13 Aug, 2014 01:57
-
Replacing King Log with King Stork?
-
#23
by
Coastal Ron
on 13 Aug, 2014 03:13
-
I've often wondered in the future if ULA would go public. A public sale of stock would allow shareholders of LM and Boeing to get a return for their investment at the height of the launch business.
No one in their right mind would take ULA public today. Their financial future is too cloudy, and this CEO change confirms that.
-
#24
by
AdAstraInc
on 13 Aug, 2014 07:07
-
"Not only that, but that Gass was from Lockheed Martin, and is being replaced by someone from Lockheed Martin. And here we thought ULA was a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, but Boeing is not being allowed to "take their turn" at leading ULA."
Per the ULA charter master agreement, LM will always appoint the CEO, while Boeing gets COO and CFO.
-
#25
by
woods170
on 13 Aug, 2014 09:20
-
I'm reminded of this: Peacetime CEO/Wartime CEO
My thoughts exactly. ULA is faced with some interesting challenges in the near future. Gass is not the person considered to be up to the job of handling those challenges. This is even more-or-less admitted by Gass himself in his statement of yesterday, although he chose his words carefully:
With my intent to retire in the near term and the changing industry landscape over the next several years, the board of directors and I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor to begin the leadership transition is in the best interest of the company,
His performance in the Gass vs. Musk hearing was subpar. When the SpaceX vs. USAF lawsuit on the block buy showed up he made a dumb move: when you are not actually part of a lawsuit, don't get yourself involved in any way; avoid the bad press. Nevertheless, ULA publicly expressed support for the USAF side of the case.
Next Gass overplayed his hand in the lawsuit by allowing ULA to file a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, only to have that motion denied by the judge some time later. The judge clearly told ULA (and thus Gass) that ULA was no party in the lawsuit and should stay out. Gass should have realised this earlier, but failed to do so.
IMO those right there are some of the reasons why this is happening. Put simply: Gass blew it and now has to make way for someone else to clean up the mess.
-
#26
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 13:07
-
No one in their right mind would take ULA public today. Their financial future is too cloudy, and this CEO change confirms that.
Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
-
#27
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Aug, 2014 13:25
-
Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
If that's all it was then why did they not announce the new CEO ahead of time, instead of with immediate effect? Doing it ahead of time would have lessened the inevitable speculation / unfavourable publicity that an immediate replacement generates.
-
#28
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 13:53
-
Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
If that's all it was then why did they not announce the new CEO ahead of time, instead of with immediate effect? Doing it ahead of time would have lessened the inevitable speculation / unfavourable publicity that an immediate replacement generates.
How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
-
#29
by
Coastal Ron
on 13 Aug, 2014 13:57
-
No one in their right mind would take ULA public today. Their financial future is too cloudy, and this CEO change confirms that.
Wrong. The CEO change is the result of a pending retirement.
His statement in the Aviation Week article suggests an accelerated transition.
-
#30
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 13:57
-
His performance in the Gass vs. Musk hearing was subpar. When the SpaceX vs. USAF lawsuit on the block buy showed up he made a dumb move: when you are not actually part of a lawsuit, don't get yourself involved in any way; avoid the bad press. Nevertheless, ULA publicly expressed support for the USAF side of the case.
Next Gass overplayed his hand in the lawsuit by allowing ULA to file a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, only to have that motion denied by the judge some time later. The judge clearly told ULA (and thus Gass) that ULA was no party in the lawsuit and should stay out. Gass should have realised this earlier, but failed to do so.
IMO those right there are some of the reasons why this is happening. Put simply: Gass blew it and now has to make way for someone else to clean up the mess.
ULA (and thus Gass) is a bad assumption. Gass reports to a BOD.
-
#31
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Aug, 2014 14:59
-
How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
And they announced the new CEO was already in post. In my experience companies announce a future date when a new CEO (once chosen) will take up their post, unless there's a pressing reason why the previous CEO can't continue in post a day longer.
The press release doesn't say anything about an orderly handover to Tony Bruno having already taken place.
-
#32
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 15:21
-
How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
And they announced the new CEO was already in post. In my experience companies announce a future date when a new CEO (once chosen) will take up their post, unless there's a pressing reason why the previous CEO can't continue in post a day longer.
The press release doesn't say anything about an orderly handover to Tony Bruno having already taken place.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/michael-gass-statement-regarding-his.aspx?title=Michael+Gass+Statement+Regarding+His+Retirement
-
#33
by
Linze
on 13 Aug, 2014 15:48
-
How can it be "ahead" of time? The retirement announcement has to come first. Gass decides to retire and ULA decides to find a replacement and announce both at the same time.
And they announced the new CEO was already in post. In my experience companies announce a future date when a new CEO (once chosen) will take up their post, unless there's a pressing reason why the previous CEO can't continue in post a day longer.
The press release doesn't say anything about an orderly handover to Tony Bruno having already taken place.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/michael-gass-statement-regarding-his.aspx?title=Michael+Gass+Statement+Regarding+His+Retirement
Which includes a quote directly refuting your point.
"I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor"
There's can be only one CEO at a time, and there was no transition period.
Transition periods aren't just typical, they're expected. There was no transition period, therefore, this was highly irregular. It gives every impression that Gass was terminated.
Why?
-
#34
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 16:14
-
Which includes a quote directly refuting your point.
"I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor"
There's can be only one CEO at a time, and there was no transition period.
Transition periods aren't just typical, they're expected. There was no transition period, therefore, this was highly irregular. It gives every impression that Gass was terminated.
Why?
Huh?
What part of
"Board of Directors and I have agreed that the immediate appointment of my successor to begin the leadership transition is in the best interest of the company. ……... I will support Tory over the next several months to ensure a smooth transition."
is not a transition? And how does that refute vs enforce my point?
-
#35
by
JasonAW3
on 13 Aug, 2014 16:36
-
For all we know, this transition could have been planned for quite some time and was kept from the public.
-
#36
by
Linze
on 13 Aug, 2014 16:40
-
For all we know, this transition could have been planned for quite some time and was kept from the public.
To replace him without a public transition period makes it appear to be a termination.
Why do it that way if it's not a termination?
-
#37
by
strangequark
on 13 Aug, 2014 17:08
-
For all we know, this transition could have been planned for quite some time and was kept from the public.
To replace him without a public transition periods makes it appear to be a termination.
Why do it that way if it's not a termination?
There is a public transition period of several months, it just appears that the search for his successor was kept as an internal matter. He's staying with ULA through the end of the year. Contrast this with what happened recently at Microsoft, where the search was public, and then Ballmer left as soon as the new CEO was appointed. Not too many jobs where you hang out for four months after you are "fired".
-
#38
by
Linze
on 13 Aug, 2014 17:46
-
There is a public transition period of several months, it just appears that the search for his successor was kept as an internal matter. He's staying with ULA through the end of the year.
Which coincidentally or not, is also the way high level corporate leaders tend to be terminated. If they officially stay on for some period of time, it's because they want to receive their deferred compensation.
Whether he was terminated or not, it has the signatures of a termination. It's unusual for a corporate leader in good standing to be treated this way.
-
#39
by
Jim
on 13 Aug, 2014 18:04
-
Whether he was terminated or not, it has the signatures of a termination. It's unusual for a corporate leader in good standing to be treated this way.
Wrong on both accounts. He is not being "treated" in anyway that can be construed as bad. He has been thinking about retiring and he talks to his BOD, and to take advantage of his remaining time, they appoint his successor to have a transition.