Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Agrees With Airbus!  
User currently offlineJkelley480 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

Boeing's main argument against the A380 has been that they think there will be more point to point air travel and less "hub" travel. Today Boeing announced they are moving their corporate headquarters partly because they want to be in a more central location. This, they say, will make it easier for business travel--better connections, etc. I my opinion this supports Airbus' view that the A380 is viable in the marketplace, as it will ease runway congestion and save airlines money. What do you think?

P.S. When Boeing says "a more central location," I ask: More central to what? Many of their biggest and best customers are in Asia. Seattle is certainly closer to Asia than Denver, Dallas, or Chicago.

P.P.S. I suppose it does not really matter where the corporate headquarters are, the business will run just as well no matter what the location of those calling the shots. It is a symbolic gesture though. To me it symbolizes their hastiness and lack of foresight. And, as N766AS said, it is a slap in the face of Seattle and the people who live here. Thanks a lot, Boeing.



27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

I do not see how this in ANY way supports your thesis that Boeing agrees with Airbus about the A380. Please explain in further detail how relocating their executive headquarters parallels with Airbus's decision to go ahead with the A380.

UAL747


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

What is this going to do with moving their offices? I am sure there is no other reason apart from lowering their costs.

 Smile


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1862 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Central with respect to their major operations in Seattle, Long Beach, St. Louis, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and perhaps a few that I have left out.

User currently offlineWN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Dallas is certainly central to three very good customers: WN (at DAL), AA (at DFW), and CO (at IAH).

User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

..."...the company would seek new, global opportunties from a headquarters in a "culturally diverse" city that offers access to global markets.....

I see where your point is, it's going to a new corporate centre, so we aren't talking centrality with respect to plane parts, they're talking with respect to people....

Seems like a very irrational move...must be something else behind it...."....we have determined that our headquarters needs to be in a location central to all our operating units, customers and the financial community....."

Could anybody tell me what they mean by "central"?


Rgds,
WB


User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

Widebody, no offence, but you seem to think everything Boeing does is irrational.

User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

When you decide to dig up your corporate headquarters from the city in which you were founded, yes, I call it irrational.......when you weigh up the for's and the against's, they must have had strong for's to do it.....even for you Boeing747-400, it must seem like a surprising decision.....but then again, if Condit told you to jump, you'd ask how high, and wait till he told you to come down.......

Regards,
W.B.

P.S. I had to look up the word 'irrational' in the dictionary to see how to spell it, today is my first time using the word.......sorry to burst your bubble on my opinion of BCAG.......


User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

I'm sure they have a good reason Widebody, and yes, it surprised me too.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

I've got to agree with Widebody on this one. It doesn't seem to make that much sense for Boeing to move from the city where it was born. I'm starting to think that Condit's head is stuck really stuck far up his ass.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

What's this whole thing about the need to be central? What is so important that it requires this move? i know what it said in the press releases, but what can be achieved elsewhere that can't be achieved in Seattle?

User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Have we all forgotten how all the major airlines moved their headquarters away from NYC to their respective cities? I wouldn't call UA's move to Chicago, AA's move to Dallas (and so on...) irrational. Maybe Boeing really does have a legit reason for wanting to move out of its hometown.

User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3421 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing has a presence in 26 states. By moving the HQ to DEN/DFW/ORD (hub cities all) Boeing will save a great deal of travel time ("time is money") and expense each year. Also, as a % of total employees in the greater Seattle area, the loss of 1,000 Boeing jobs is hardly an abandonment of their hometown. (Unless, of course, you're one of the 1,000.)


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineAsqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 615 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Considering that Phil Condit and the other people in the corporate HQ don't travel on the airlines, why should they care if they are in a hub city or not? Condit and the other top execs travel in private jets when they are traveling on business for Boeing and don't really care where they would have to make a connection since they don't have to!

User currently offlineAA-SAN From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

This argument rests on some of the worst logic I have seen in quite a while. Please... many corporations move their headquarters for numerous reasons (as Watewate pointed out with his two airline examples and I can add TWA's move to St Louis from NY). Everyone keeps running around trying to predict where they will move and why. The where is anybody's guess, but the why seems clear to me. Boeing in Seattle screams commercial aircraft. Boeing is trying really, really, really (you get my point) hard to shed thier image of being a company that only makes commercial aircraft. If they can get their HQ out of Seattle, then they may just be able to prove to the world that they truly are a company that is expanding into other fields. To me it just seems like a highly symbolic move to show everyone (especially businesses that aren't interested in their commercial planes) that they are dedicated to their entire array of products. This may not be the best move for Boeing's commercial aircraft, but for the entire Boeing company, this seems like a great way of diversifying. This has nothing to do with the A380 or any other topic you can think up related to airline travel. Sorry if you disagree, but that's just what I read of the whole thing.

User currently offlineTWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Where is Boeing moving?



User currently offlineLowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Isn't one of the reasons they are moving is that the power bill in Seattle is getting way too high. Electricity is expensive, and could be cheaper elsewhere.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8084 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Saying that Boeing execs all travel by private jet is bollocks! Maybe Condit on a 'state visit', he'll turn up on a 737NG-BBJ but believe me everyone else flies commercial. For god's sake, why wouldn't they? It's hardly necessary for salesmen, auditors, safety specialists, consultants etc to fly in a private jet when their equivalent numbers at, say, Starbucks fly AA, UA, NW etc.

It never occurred to me but I bet it is a pain in the arse for Boeing people (and expensive too) to have to fly to Seattle, adding a couple of hours extra to their journey time every time they hit the road. Moving the corporate HQ out of WA makes loads of sense to me, for many reasons stated by other contributors but primarily the cost of travel. The electricity question is an interesting one as well.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Maybe they move to Toulouse?  Big grin

Regards
Udo


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Are you out of your mind. Boeing's biggest customers are AA and United. All the city mentioned have close ties to either United or AA. chicago for example is UA's headquarter and a major Hub for AA.



User currently offlineAF777 From Canada, joined Jun 1999, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Boeing is moving its corporate hedquarters to either Denver, Dallas, or Chicago. To the best of my knowledge they are keeping their commercial heaquarters in Seattle, Space operations in Long Beach and their military orperations in St Louis. Each of these divisions are going to be cheifed by CEO's. Planes are going to continue to be built in Seattle, not everything is moving. And it really isn't a slap in the face because Seattle is booming and Boeing moving some employees elsewhere isn't going to have a severe impact on the city.

-wes


User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Texas doesn't have state income tax, correct? There is one reason more for Boeing hq to be moved to Dallas. When you think from managements' perspective, its easy to see the rationale. Many other tech companies have moved their parts from Arizona into Texas.

User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

Texas doesn't have state income tax, correct? There is one reason more for Boeing hq to be moved to Dallas. When you think from managements' perspective, its easy to see the rationale. Many other tech companies have moved their parts from Arizona into Texas.

User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Texas doesn't have state income tax, correct? There is one reason more for Boeing hq to be moved to Dallas. When you think from managements' perspective, its easy to see the rationale. Many other tech companies have moved their parts from Arizona into Texas.

User currently offlineGrowly150 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

hey WN boy, IAH is houston, not dallas

25 Critter : Lets get something straight. We now live in the high tech computer era were distance just doesn't matter. You have video conferencing and live online
26 UAL-Fan : Maybe......it has something to do with the huge energy crisis that will soon impact all of the West Coast.
27 Galaxy5 : are they moving their manufacturing processes or just their headquarters? if its just an office move i dont see what the big deal is, are they going t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Agrees With Boeing On Compsite A/C-? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 17:33:54 by Halibut
Virgin Nigeria (VNA) Negotiates With Airbus/Boeing posted Mon Jan 17 2005 07:26:00 by EurostarVA
Boeing Trying To Avoid Spat With Airbus posted Thu Sep 23 2004 16:22:39 by Nyc777
Embraer/Bombardier Competing With Airbus/Boeing? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 12:12:28 by UTA_flyinghigh
Boeing Unhappy With Boeing - Will Switch To Airbus posted Thu Jan 9 2003 21:25:44 by Clickhappy
Lufthansa Talking With Airbus And Boeing posted Sun Sep 30 2001 07:32:44 by Airbus Lover
Boeing Is Fighting Back With Airbus posted Fri Nov 19 1999 22:39:43 by DeltaAir
Boeing Won't Imitate Airbus' "Symbolic" China FAL posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:03:15 by Leelaw
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:55:31 by JAM747
Boeing's Backlog Exceeds Airbus posted Fri Oct 6 2006 15:34:28 by Katekebo