Toxtethogrady From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2830 times:
Let's evaluate this pending move...
Boeing - which has almost all its aircraft production in Seattle, the military production in St. Louis and Southern California, and its NASA contracting in Houston near the JSC, decides to move. So where do they look?
Chicago? - Da Bulls and Da Bears ain't what they used to be. But United is there.
Dallas? - Where it's 110 in the shade in July and the guys in the cowboy hats make fun of aerospace engineers who hail from Bangalore? But American is there.
Denver? - When has Boeing even VISITED Denver? Are they wooing Frontier?
It reminds me of ExxonMobil pulling up stakes and leaving New York. They ended up 250 miles north of where they should have landed.
Toxtethogrady From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
...where the CEO's move to some remote location far away from their operations. When that renowned business genius William Agee took over Boise-based Morrison Knudson Co., he chose to run it from his executive offices in Pebble Beach, CA. They went Chapter 11 not much later.
Having the boss a thousand miles away from where the work is done is not a recipe for maintaining lines of communication...
N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2686 times:
>You must understand that Boeing is not moving the factory. They are only moving the HQ.
You must understand this is just the beginning. First they move corp HQ (probably to DFW), then they move the engineers, then they start moving production to Mexico, and next thing you know the 'last person out' billboards will be back in Seattle.
>Having the boss a thousand miles away from where the work is done is not a recipe for maintaining lines of communication...
I think thats what Phil Condit is going for. If hes thousands of miles away from the company, they can't really access him as well, can they?
I'm telling y'all, this is just the beginning of a de-Boeingizing of Seattle.
D L X From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Boeing CEO Condit was on Fox News Channel last night.
They are only moving the HQ. The idea is that there is too much micromanagement with hq being so close to the commercial division. Boeing is now trying to stress that the space and defense arms are just as important, so HQ won't be in the same city as any of the divisions.
N766AS, they're not going to Mexico. Don't you think that would be an incredibly expensive move to vacate the largest building in the world, and just rebuild a new one elsewhere? How about the supply chain? To Mexico? Come on now.
FDXmech From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Personally, I think its stinks. I lose respect and confidence in Condit with every article I read about him. From what I read in Boeings website, its all about increasing stockholder value according to Condit. Thats just another corporate buzzword and gimmick doomed to failure and alienating the commercial airplane workforce even more than it is now.
BlatantEcho From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2654 times:
The way you increase shareholder value is through increaseing revenue, growth, market share, and profit margins. So what if you call it "increaseing shareholder value" are any of these principles bad for a company?
I would only be concered if it was short term value, such as selling off parts of the company. I can't see how this will hurt Boeing in any way other than short term PR.
FDXmech From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2650 times:
My argument isn't with increasing shareholder value, not in the least. But everytime a corporation makes an obviously silly move, they explain it away by saying its to increase shareholder value. Now obviously I'm not "in the know" of their true motivations to move their HQ's but if I worked in their commercial division, I bet their would be rumors flyin aplenty, and not pleasant ones at that.
Too much micromanagement isn't solved by moving your HQ's, you can micromanage with a cell phone and conference calls to your hearts delight if this is the established corporate culture.
Logos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
I have a good friend who works for Boeing here as a customer service rep. I called him after reading of the move on the internet to get his take. He hadn't heard about it! I said, well, I wasn't sure how information flows with Boeing he said "pretty much like molassas".
Now, in Seattle, I'm sure it's a different story but I still have yet to see a good, business-based reason for doing this. I agree; the "enhancing shareholder value" argument is often dragged out when they can't think of anything else to say.
Na From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Why is Boeings HQ moving? Does Condit think losing contact to his workforce enhances corporate spirit?
A very strange idea, if you ask me.
On the other hand, its an reletively easy recipe to get rid of a large number of high-paid managers. Move far away from the place where the most have been living for long, have their friends, pay their mortgages. I guess Boeing offers most off them to move with the office. But its selfunderstood that a lot will prefer to stay, look for a job with with a lower income. That happened to two of my former companies I worked for. And it saved a lot of money for golden handshakes.
NUair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
Boeing is hardly a Seattle company anymore. If you look at all their manufacturing facilities from Witchita to Long Beach to contracts throughout the world Seattle isn't the greatest place in the world for an aerospace corporate center. It seems to me a more central location such as Denver would be more beneficial to direct national operations. And you don't have to deal with 364 days of rain and delays every year. It's not a ploy to attract new customers or move to Mexico (GM and Ford stayed in Michigan while their factories went to Mexico) its just a good business practice to centralize corporate headquarters. If anything it might improve life in Seattle and free up some more residential and commercial real estate making it somewhat affordable again.
Kindalazy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
Keep in mind that of Boeing's nearly 200,000 employees, only 90,000 work on the commercial aircraft side. The rest are 45,000 in aerospace, 45,000 in military, the rest misc. boeing divisions. I'm not sure how the revenues break down - does anyone have that info...? This board is obviously focused on the commercial side, but Condit has a much bigger picture to deal with.
Sccutler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2540 times:
...are the content and genesis of Tox's first post in this thread.
The D/FW area is very heavy in aerospace; and (as recent decades have shown us) a very popular place to relocate corporate HQ's, for reasons of costs, central location, quality of life, available workforce, tax policy and others.
Boeing has very substantial operations here, as well.
I am sure that there are similar rationales for Chicago and Denver, as well.
Of course, it may all be a ploy to secure tax concessions from WA state, etc.; but don't let your irrational biases distract you from business reality.
Uprightnlocked From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2525 times:
Boeing will most certainly move to Chi-town. Boeing does not solely serve US carriers - they need to be located in a city which will serve an international client base. You can fly from ORD to almost any major city world-wide non-stop. AA and UA maintain a fortress hub at ORD. Chicago is a city that can easily entertain the head of any airline while he/she is doing business with Boeing - Opera, Theatre, Dinning, 1st class lodging, upscale country-clubs, all within 7 hours to Europe and 13 hours to Asia.
Dallas and Denver a great cities, but Chicago is much more international.
D L X From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Actually, I have to 100% agree. I actually thought I had misread it, and he was talking about DFW at first. (Denver is much further behind.) Point is, Chicago isn't much ahead.
And don't forget folks, the cost of labor is not an issue!!! They're not moving the manufacturing, just the business side. (Selling airplanes and rockets, buying materials.)
While I don't necessarily agree with the move, I understand it. Basically, Phil Condit is by virtue of being so close to the commercial biz, micromanaging the commercial side, and giving the other units less attention. The VP of the Commercial Division is staying in Seattle. That's what's important folks.