|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Oct 14, 2019 18:22:30 GMT 1
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. I see your point, but feel slightly unfair for the point that companies are moving to SEA. Most of them are software companies and want to lure talent from AMAZON and MICROSOFT LOL Another factor I heard earlier before about Boeing's HQ move is due to customers since UA is there and I feel purely none sense on that .....  |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Oct 14, 2019 22:07:10 GMT 1
Make it simple - they moved away from the engineers - so the MIGHTY and HEROIC smart genial managers would not have pressure from silly not important technical people with their silly reasons - who cares in BO management about silly technical problems in planes......
They had to have distance to not have a chance to actually meet some of the production or R/D people in person because they might tell them they are not happy with spending significantly more on share buyback than on R/D and who want to have a chance of such unpleasant thing happening !
As simple as that - all the rest is "covering fog" !
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 15, 2019 14:45:33 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. Forget the unions. It was exactly for the reason mentioned: To be closer to NYSE and such. A lot of investor presentations are going to happen all the time. The felt the west coast was too distant for it. Financing is a key topic for aircraft manufacturers as became the Boeing stock for senior execs themselves as their bonuses where connected to it. They wanted a different "neutral" location from Seattle too because of their unification with McDD. |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Oct 15, 2019 16:18:23 GMT 1
It was exactly for the reason mentioned: ... as became the Boeing stock for senior execs themselves as their bonuses where connected to it. They wanted a different "neutral" location from Seattle too because of their unification with McDD. Exactly they did not wanted to be met by people whose interest is in the planes, not in the stock. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 15, 2019 18:13:45 GMT 1
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. Forget the unions. It was exactly for the reason mentioned: To be closer to NYSE and such. A lot of investor presentations are going to happen all the time. The felt the west coast was too distant for it. Financing is a key topic for aircraft manufacturers as became the Boeing stock for senior execs themselves as their bonuses where connected to it. They wanted a different "neutral" location from Seattle too because of their unification with McDD. If you want to be near to the NYSE, why move to Chicago? The NYSE is still 1200 km and 1 hour time difference away. The key topic for an aircraft manufacturer should perhaps not be financing and the board's and CEO's interest in their own stock portfolio. The merger happened several years before the headquarters were moved. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 16, 2019 1:18:00 GMT 1
Thank you for the friendly tone. It's strange that you feel entitled to use such language against fellow posters for small differences of opinion. Do you believe that such harsh words add force to your comments ? Do you enjoy hyper-aggressive discussions ? 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. I probably wasn't clear enough, since you missed the meaning of my post. Of course, moving the group headquarters to Chicago had nothing to do with the headquarter workforce. The intention was to move the decision center further away from the plants to reduce the influence of the Seattle unions and that of the local environment. To the business and financial community, the change meant that Boeing was breaking free, intending to progressively reduce its industrial footprint in Seattle and to move to more favourable locations. This plan was later implemented with the opening of the Charleston facility and the 777X inter-state tax cut competition. Illinois is a heavy unionized State, not less than Washington. It didn't matter, since Boeing picked Illinois for its headquarters only, not for its industrial units. What mattered was the distance from Seattle. The union bashing came later. Yet, the first anti-union move was the opening of new headquarters. The move to Chicago was plain and simple because the company moved from being a engineering driven company to an MBA driven company I don't disagree with this, as the upcoming fight with the unions and the intent to shrink the expensive Seattle workforce and to reduce its benefits and to diversify the industrial footprint were, from the outstart, at the center of the intended transformation. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 16, 2019 2:12:52 GMT 1
If I think something is nonsense, I call it nonsense.
Now you are looking back with today's knowledge to justify a decision at a different time.
The merger between Boeing and McDonald Douglas has happened.
Boeing (merged with MDD)is the single giant commercial airframer with little serious competition. At that time Airbus has not done it´s growth spurt.
The headquarters are moved 2001, by Philip M. Condit and Harry Stonecipher. Seattle at that time is provincial and Chicago is the exclusive world of industrial giants. You can hobnob with your supposed equals.
Boeing turns with a vengeance to the stock market. Boeing decides to spend their cash on a rather new financial instrument, stock buy backs.
At that time Boeing is criticized for putting their cash in those financial instruments rather than develop new frames.
Boeing lost the competition for the joint fighter contract the year of the move, on the commercial side it is the sonic cruiser that flops.
The 787 is not yet on the the table and neither are the moves to Charleston. At that time Boeing is still closing down other operations and increases it´s industrial presence in Washington state.
They did not watch Airbus. 2001 still a rather small company, being a real rival today for Boeing. It is 2002 or 2003 when narrow body production at Airbus outpaced narrow body construction at Boeing, losing the lead only once again in 2014 I think.
At that time Boeing should perhaps have rather started a long term replacement project for the 737, instead of burning their cash on stock buy backs.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 17, 2019 0:24:50 GMT 1
Did Boeing Pay Too Much Attention to Wall Street?www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hunter-killer-assassins-why-the-boeing-saga-is-the-story-of-our-times/quote: The autopsies in the death of the Boeing way now are coming as fast as the lawsuits.
The legendary plane maker was tripped up by its own “corporate culture … of expediency of design-to-market and cost-cutting,” contended an internal company whistleblower.
“Boeing made a calculated decision to … prioritize its bottom line,” was how the Southwest Airlines pilots union put it in a recent lawsuit.
Even Forbes business magazine broached the taboo question: “Did Boeing Pay Too Much Attention to Wall Street?”
But the most revealing suggestion of how Boeing went astray came from a local aerospace engineer, Cynthia Cole, who led the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) until 2010.
“It was two camps of managers, the Boeing Boy Scouts and the ‘hunter killer assassins,’ ” she told The New Republic magazine. “How do you merge those two management philosophies? The hunter killer assassins will destroy the Boy Scouts. That’s what happens.”
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 17, 2019 2:01:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Oct 17, 2019 11:55:09 GMT 1
Please let’s stay professional. No need from anyone to attack other members.
Thank you all
|
|
