|
|
Post by fanairbus on Oct 12, 2019 8:39:13 GMT 1
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Oct 12, 2019 11:34:58 GMT 1
They should have probably kicked him off completely - but as always we will see......
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 13, 2019 10:02:38 GMT 1
I expect him to stay as long as the MAX crisis is still ongoing.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 13, 2019 12:32:58 GMT 1
One of the big problems at Boeing seems to be oversight. Chairmen of the board and CEO should anyway never be the same person, it is even strange that the CEO is still a voting member on the board, as the board should have oversight over the CEO.
The next point should be to move the management of Boeing back to Seattle, to remove the unhealthy geographical distance and time difference between management and engineering.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 14, 2019 9:01:09 GMT 1
The next point should be to move the management of Boeing back to Seattle, to remove the unhealthy geographical distance and time difference between management and engineering. That would be a symbolic though naive move, like trying to move back in time. I doubt it would be of much actual importance. In any company, the days when engineering or production prevailed on finance are gone. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 14, 2019 9:22:18 GMT 1
Boeing needs Chicago as a group HQ to be closer to the east coast financial markets and to DC. There will be no change back.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 14, 2019 13:28:26 GMT 1
Boeing needs Chicago as a group HQ to be closer to the east coast financial markets and to DC. There will be no change back. There may well be no change back, but that Boeing needs the Chicago headquarters for financial reasons is IMO pure nonsense. When you look at the other big companies headquartered in Seattle like for example Amazone or Microsoft, I assume they than do not need to be near financial markets? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_SeattleIf you look at the list of companies headquartered in Seattle, the notion that you can not run a company from Seattle, because of financial contact reasons, is plainly absurd. If Boeing would be in Seattle and would need contact with their banks, they would come calling. Lobbying congress would be a reason to be in the east, but than why so far from Washington? |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 14, 2019 13:33:14 GMT 1
It's not "nonsense" it's why they did it. And it even sort of paid off stock wise.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 14, 2019 15:53:50 GMT 1
It's not "nonsense" it's why they did it. And it even sort of paid off stock wise. Not exactly, moving to Chicago wasn't intended to move closer to financial markets (they do not care at all). In fact, Boeing could have moved anywhere in the Unites States, the important point was that they were moving away from the Seattle unions and from a unionised work force. Boeing was also sending state authorities the message that they might leave the Seattle region in the near future, unless they were granted tax cuts. These are matters financial markets care for. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 14, 2019 17:25:00 GMT 1
It's not "nonsense" it's why they did it. And it even sort of paid off stock wise. Not exactly, moving to Chicago wasn't intended to move closer to financial markets (they do not care at all). In fact, Boeing could have moved anywhere in the Unites States, the important point was that they were moving away from the Seattle unions and from a unionised work force. Boeing was also sending state authorities the message that they might leave the Seattle region in the near future, unless they were granted tax cuts. These are matters financial markets care for. More nonsense. What part of the workforce at Boeing headquarters was unionized? If you want to flee unions you need to move mainly production and in the second step engineering. At that time, 2001, Boeing was still closing down or selling off production anywhere else, but in Seattle. Apart from that, Illinois is a heavy unionized State, not less than Washington. The union bashing came later. The move to Chicago was plain and simple because the company moved from being a engineering driven company to an MBA driven company and it was more exclusive to be in Chicago than in Seattle, while being near to the engineering center was deemed unnecessary. Since than Chicago has slowly been on the way down, while Seattle has boomed. If you show me another company, that has this crass geographical separation between its main division, Boeing Commercial, and Headquarters, I would like to know about it. 5 top companies companies in Chicago metro, according to Fortune 500 rank, #17 Walgreens, #28 Boeing, State Farm #36, Archer Daniels Midland #49 and Caterpillar #58. 5 top companies in Seattle metro, Amazon #5, Costco #14, Microsoft #26, Starbucks #121 and Paccar #130. Yes Chicago has more Fortune 500 companies than Seattle, but guess where the companies are moving up the list. When Boeing moved headquarters, it was the biggest Fortune 500 company in Seattle metro area and #10 in the USA. They do not hold those positions now. |
|
