Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Made Toulouse And Everett Headquarters?  
User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

Just wondering why Airbus chose Toulouse as their headquarters and why Boeing chose Everett? Also, why did Boeing even start in Seattle then move to Everett in 2001? My guess would be that BFI provides a gateway for international carriers from the Pacific, which makes sense? But then why move from Seattle?


From the airport with love
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10043 times:

Actually, Boeing moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago a few years ago.


I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10010 times:

Quoting goblin211 (Thread starter):
Also, why did Boeing even start in Seattle then move to Everett in 2001

They moved it to Chicago not Everett in 2001. Boeing's widebody production facility is in Everett. Their narrowbody facilities is still in renton and seattle

Quoting goblin211 (Thread starter):
My guess would be that BFI provides a gateway for international carriers from the Pacific

I don't think it had anything to do with gateway to carriers from pacific. Seattle was just historically where Boeing has been. Had William Boeing started off in Kansas or Iowa, Boeing would've had headquarter in those areas.



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9975 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 2):
I don't think it had anything to do with gateway to carriers from pacific. Seattle was just historically where Boeing has been. Had William Boeing started off in Kansas or Iowa, Boeing would've had headquarter in those areas.



William Boeing had made his money in the timber business but was interested in airplanes. Like many early enthusiasts of aircraft, he saw a need for a local maker, he had close supplies of the premium wood needed to build aircraft in that time and had enough capital to actually start a company for the long haul. If you go to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, you can see a rebuild of the original aircraft factory building and probably Boeing's website has a history outline which may give further details.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9938 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
Like many early enthusiasts of aircraft, he saw a need for a local maker, he had close supplies of the premium wood needed to build aircraft in that time and had enough capital to actually start a company for the long haul.

Similar to the auto industry, there used to be a lot more manufacturers scattered all over. Most failed or got bought out and the survivors became huge. Seattle became the home of Boeing because that's where William Boeing was. Had he been somewhere else, or some other company bought them out, it could have probably been any other city in the country.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9919 times:

Toulouse had something to do with the predecessor company of Airbus having a big presence there.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25872 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9869 times:

Quoting goblin211 (Thread starter):
why did Boeing even start in Seattle then move to Everett in 2001?

Not sure what you're referring to in 2001, but Boeing built their widebody assembly plant at Everett in the late 1960s for the 747 and all Boeing widebodies have been built there since. Narrow bodies are built at Renton (RNT), although the first 271 (or similar number) 737s were built at BFI as Renton didn't have enough capacity then with both 707 and 727 production still significant.

I expect they chose Paine Field in Everett for the 747 assembly plant due to the availabililty of land at a reasonable cost (they had to cut down a forest to make room for the 747 plant). There was no room at BFI or Renton for such a huge building.


User currently offlinemacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
you can see a rebuild of the original aircraft factory building

The Red Barn at BFI is NOT a rebuild or replica. It is the orginal building.

The Boeing Company is headquartered in Chicago after moving from the Plant Two area in Seattle a few years back. It has never been headquartered in Everett.

I cannot speak for our French friends, but I suspect it too has a similar legacy.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9834 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Seattle became the home of Boeing because that's where William Boeing was.

  

And Toulouse is probably where Mr. Airbus is from.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1205 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9700 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I recall Sud Aviation started in Toulouse in about 1947 with the French government reorganizing some of the privately held aircraft companies. By the early 1950's they started designing the Caravelle which became rather successful   After some mergers in the 70's they became Aerospatiale still headquartered in Toulouse, and that become one of the key core companies of EADS Airbus. Not quite the history of Boeing and United Aircraft, but nevertheless Sud/Aerospatiale/EADS has pedigree track record going back about 60 years.


The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3758 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
If you go to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, you can see a rebuild of the original aircraft factory building and probably Boeing's website has a history outline which may give further details.



as noted above the red barn is not a replica.. It also is not the original Boeing plane assembly building which was a shop on Lake Union in 1916... It does however have a long history, it was built in 1909 and Boeing moved there in 1916. It became the core of became Plant I and produced everything up through the Clippers. Although the Museum shows it as a manufacturing building, it was more engineering and administration. Plant II was built about 1936 primarily to have the factory at an airfield. Previously the planes were trucked to BFI and reassembled for flight (except the flying boats.. but I guess that would be obvious)

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
I expect they chose Paine Field in Everett for the 747 assembly plant due to the availability of land at a reasonable cost (they had to cut down a forest to make room for the 747 plant). There was no room at BFI or Renton for such a huge building.



The main reasons for the Everett Plant were
1) existing airfield
2) lots of cheap rural land
3) freedom from King County building permit requirements
4) available labor force (although many were transferred North)

Now why Mr. Boeing was in Seattle to begin with was timber... locating the company where he lived just made sense. Phil Condit and Harry Stoncipher moved to headquarters to be closer to the money of Wall Street and the power of Washington DC.


User currently offlineRentonView From United States of America, joined May 2005, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9695 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 1):
They moved it to Chicago not Everett in 2001. Boeing's widebody production facility is in Everett. Their narrowbody facilities is still in renton and seattle

In addition, the Boeing Commercial Airplanes division is headquartered in Renton, at the Longacres office park:



User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25872 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9625 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 9):
f I recall Sud Aviation started in Toulouse in about 1947 with the French government reorganizing some of the privately held aircraft companies. By the early 1950's they started designing the Caravelle which became rather successful

Newsreel footage (no sound) of the Caravelle prototype's first flight at TLS in May 1955.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=63619

Another video covering a visit by French President Charles de Gaulle to the Sud Aviation factory at TLS in February 1959, arriving on the 2nd prototype (F-BHHI). It's in AF livery but never went into service. The Caravelle was certified and went into service 2 or 3 months later. (No sound until the 4:25 mark when he makes a speech to the factory workers.)
http://www.ina.fr/fresques/de-gaulle...026/visite-a-sud-aviation-toulouse

The cockpit section of that 2nd prototype is in the aviation museum (Musée de l'Air) at Le Bourget airport in Paris.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marc Lehmann



User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9566 times:

For Toulouse, if I may try...

In 1917, Pierre-Georges Latécoère, an industialist working, up to there, in railroad rolling stock, opened a factory in Montaudran, SW of Toulouse, to make Salmson 2 A2 biplanes for the French army. Émile Dewoitine is in charge of that production.

In 1920, Dewoitine opens his own company, which will fold and reopen, and finally be nationalized in 1937 under the name Société Nationale des Constructions Aéronautiques du Midi (SNCAM). In turn, the SNCAM is taken over by Société Nationale des Constructions Aéronautiques du Sud-Est (SNCASE), in 1940. Blagnac airport is open in 1939, in an industial sector, and Dewoitine's new shop is in Saint-Martin-du-Touch. That factory is the ancester of today's.

After the war, SNCASE and SNCASO (meaning ...Sud-Ouest) are merged to form Sud-Aviation, which is merged again with Nord-Aviation and SEREB to form Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, generally called Aerospatiale, which will eventually be merged into EADS in two steps, first with Matra in 1999, then with CASA and DASA in 2000.

... So, in short, aviation began in 1916 in Seattle and in 1917 in Toulouse...


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6517 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9521 times:

Toulouse:

In 1936 there was a severe general strike in France. Due to increasing unrest in Europe the government chose to nationalise the weapon industry including aircraft factories. A large number of private companies were merged into three state owned companies named by their geographical location,
south-east (SNCASE, or Société nationale des constructions aéronautiques du sud-est),
south-west (SNCASO or Société nationale des constructions aéronautiques du sud-ouest)
and north (SNCAN, or Société nationale des constructions aéronautiques du nord).

South-east maintained its design head quarter in Paris, but when northern France was overrun by nazi troops, then in 1941 it relocated nearer to its factories to a former Dewoitine site in Toulouse. South-east developed the Caravelle in the early 50'es, that's why the full name is SE-210 Caravelle.

In 1957 south-east and south-west were merged into Sud Aviation (south) maintaining the old south-east HQ in Toulouse.

In 1970 south and north merged into Aerospatiale, still maintaining Toulouse as HQ. At that time Toulouse was already the major Airbus site.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9521 times:

As for Airbus...
I know the post-war nationalized French aviation industry was Nord, Sud-Ouest and Sud-Est (which became Sud, in Toulouse). I don't know who the predecessors to those organizations were, and what civil airliner heritage those predecessors had. (I know of the Languedoc, Caravelle, N-262, and participation in the early Concorde when the organizations were Sud, Sud-Ouest, Sud-Est, or Nord, but what did they have prior?)

Also, why was Dassault not in that mix, why was it not one of the nationalized regional manufacturers? How did they remain independent of what became Aerospatiale?

-Rampart


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6517 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9443 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 15):
Also, why was Dassault not in that mix, why was it not one of the nationalized regional manufacturers? How did they remain independent of what became Aerospatiale?

It is complicated. And quite interesting. Better read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Aviation



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rampart (Reply 15):
I don't know who the predecessors to those organizations were, and what civil airliner heritage those predecessors had.

There were five predecessors, actually. The three that you mention and SNCAC (Centre) and SNCAO (Ouest).

SNCAC was merged into SNCAN (Nord) in 1949. SNCAN then bought SFECMAS in 1954 and became Nord Aviation. Sud Aviation was created in 1957 when SNCASE and SNCASO were merged.

The five government-owned companies were created between 1936 and 1937 when several aircraft (parts) manufacturers were nationalized. It is my understanding that the nationalization process was conducted strictly along geographical lines, with the result that the assets of several nationalized companies ended up split under different government-owned entities.

SNCAN was made up of Potez (2 factories), CAMS (1 factory), Atelier du Nord de la France Les Mureaux (aka ANF Les Mureaux), Amiot and Breguet (1 factory). SNCAN's first "new" aircraft was actually built under orders from the German government when Northern France was occupied during WWII. It was nothing more than a French-built version of the Messerschmitt Bf 108, and was called the Nord 1000 Pingouin. They kept developing it for a while after the war ended. I think the Nord 2000 Norecrin, a single-engine three-seater, was the first aircraft fully designed in-house.

SNCASE included Potez (1 factory), CAMS (1 factory), Romano, SPCA and Lioré et Olivier (2 factories). SNACSE's most famous aircraft are of course the SE-210 Caravelle and the Mistral, but they also built the SE-200 for Air France, the airline's first aircraft able to cross the Atlantic non-stop.

SNCASO grouped Bleriot, Bloch, SASO, UCA, SAB and Lioré et Olivier (1 factory). In 1941, SNCASO took over SNCAO which itself was made up of Breguet (1 factory) and Loire-Nieuport (2 factories). SNCASO was probably the most prolific in terms of number of models, but several of them had a total production run of just 1, including every attempt made to break into what we'd call now the GA market. Their most popular models were the Vautour IIB (bomber) and IIN (jet fighter), both of which were operated by the French and Israeli air forces. The best-selling civilian aircraft was the Bretagne, with a capacity of about 40 passengers.

Just before the merger with SNCASE, SNCASO launched the Trident III jet fighter, which broke the world record for highest altitude and fastest climb in testing, but at the time, Sud Aviation was already born and the decision was made to focus on civilian aircraft.

I know very little of SNCAC, only that it was made up of Farman, Hanriot and Loire-Nieuport (1 factory).

Breguet was a bit of a special case during the nationalization process. They lost their two factories but the company itself was allowed to remain private. Depending on which version of history one chooses to believe (I have read both), Breguet either bought or received as compensation the Salmson 2 factory in order to continue operating.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1587 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9152 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
William Boeing had made his money in the timber business but was interested in airplanes.

Born "Wilhelm Edward Böing" per Wiki.

Interesting to note that the WWII-era B-17 may just as well have been designated the Böing B-17...not to mention the Böing jet airliner lineage...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9097 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 18):
Born "Wilhelm Edward Böing" per Wiki.

Son of a German emigrant.

Plaque in Hagen-Hohenlimburg.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Boeing_Hohenlimburg01.jpeg/754px-Boeing_Hohenlimburg01.jpeg
[i]from wikepedia.de]


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

When the Aibus consortium was being created, the UK (via Hawker Siddeley) was a major partner, so it's possible the company could have been HQd in Hatfield (though the French tend to be more aggressive about such things) but when the UK pulled out it was just the French and Germans, and with France have a much greater recent aviation history, it was natural for the HQ to be there, with Toulouse (for the reasons given elsewhere in this thread) the natural place.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting faro (Reply 18):
Born "Wilhelm Edward Böing" per Wiki.
Quoting robffm2 (Reply 19):
Son of a German emigrant

Never knew that nugget of info.


User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8333 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 15):
Also, why was Dassault not in that mix, why was it not one of the nationalized regional manufacturers? How did they remain independent of what became Aerospatiale?

Politics, politics.... Did I mention politics? Dassault (Marcel Bloch, converted from judaism to catholicism and changed his name to his brother's code name in the resistance) always insisted on strong independence and used all his connections to make it so, going so far as to serve as a deputy in the National Assembly (like a congressman in the US). His company was on the way to being fully nationalized once in the 1980s, but the socialist govrnment backed down, partly realizing that Dassault was better off as a private company that actually made money.

As for Toulouse, what other posts says plus: POLITICS!!! When they built the consortium around the Franco_german axis, the Toulouse factory offered a big infrastructure and all the space needed, where Bremen and Hamburg were not yet in full gear (this would be 1965-1967, when Airbus was formed). Also, this being 20 years after World War II, the French "liked" the Germans the way you call a doberman "nice puppy:" with caution. The Germans were mor ethan happy to be part of the new Europe, and the French set up a German school for the kids of the German engineering community that came to Toulouse. It's still there. You now have a pretty strong and friendly Franco-German link, symbolized in part by Felix Kracght (a big cheese in the 60s and 70s) and his daughter Barbara (head of PR for decades; perhaps still working?). As they say, "voila."


User currently offlineB737900 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
he had close supplies of the premium wood

There was an abundance of Sitka spruce.

Quoting kanban (Reply 10):
1) existing airfield
2) lots of cheap rural land
3) freedom from King County building permit requirements
4) available labor force (although many were transferred North)

Once Pan Am confirmed their order for the 747 it was full-speed-ahead to build the Everette plant. There is a very interesting documentary shown here in the PNW about the building of the Everett plant. Don't know if it has been shown nationwide.



Sounds like a Beaver on floats..........we're saved!!
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7162 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting kanban (Reply 10):
The main reasons for the Everett Plant were
1) existing airfield
2) lots of cheap rural land
3) freedom from King County building permit requirements
4) available labor force (although many were transferred North)

Actually from what i've read labor was a big problem for Boeing for the 747, the skilled labor pool in the Seattle area was badly diluted because of too many projects running (707, 727, 737, C-X, SST, 747) and there was serious consideration to building the plant in Wichita or Alabama instead of at Paine. There was also a push to build it near McChord AFB.

Everett was as i read it a hellishly bad site for them, the only thing it had going was lower land prices. They had to clear a forest, remove a large hill, build a rail spur with some of the steepest grades in the US and it rained for something like 60 consecutive days during the foundation work causing massive delays.
There is also the story of one of the land owners basically holding Boeing hostage for a ridiculously high selling price but I can't confirm that one online.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
25 Post contains images FlySSC : all in all ... Yes !
26 Post contains images kanban : notice I didn't say "trained"... In some places we had to call people each morning to get them to work on time, others we had to send home to take a
27 Post contains images rwy04lga : How unusual There is some irony in the fact that the founder of the company that built the B-17s that bombed Germany (and in which my Dad was shot do
28 Revelation : As an aside, I've read that in the 40s a big reason why Boeing was able to grow so much was access to cheap hydroelectric power, in addition to some o
29 kanban : both are near by... so is pecan pie,
30 Viscount724 : Delays couldn't have been very massive considering the 747 made its first flight only slightly over 2 1/2 years after they started clearing the land
31 Post contains links gunsontheroof : I think this is the one? As you said, very good: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ovie-monday---february-14---b.html
32 MD-90 : Speaking as someone with an Americanized Polish surname--cool! I didn't know that about "Boeing."
33 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Bill Boeing had business dealings in the timber business in Duluth, MN. Boeing got interested in building sea or water based aircraft. Duluth was rig
34 goblin211 : I've never been to Chicago so I had no clue Boeing was headquartered there lol. Makes sense. also, I just assumed Everett b/c of all the planes that a
35 goblin211 : Fantastic documentary! I have a book on it too.
36 tdscanuck : The actual headquarters of Boeing has only been in two places...Seattle and Chicago. The HQ of commercial airplanes was always, and remains, in Seatt
37 Aesma : In fact that was the first one. It brought the country such horrible things as the actual right to strike, collective bargaining, the 40 hours work w
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...
What Is OMEGA71 And Pyras? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 16:59:35 by Ryu2
What A Combined F9 And WN Would Look Like At DEN posted Sat Aug 1 2009 09:54:26 by F9fan
B787 - What It Was And What It Became posted Tue Feb 12 2008 12:44:21 by NicoEDDF
What If LHR And Other Airports Become 24 Hours? posted Sun Jan 27 2008 16:33:19 by QatarA340
What If Etihad And Gulf Air Merge? posted Fri Sep 7 2007 08:16:31 by Beijing21
What Are Etops And Avod? posted Mon Jul 2 2007 02:00:19 by A380fo
What Made AC Change It Schedule To TLV? posted Fri Jan 12 2007 14:36:53 by El Al 001
So What Made Airbus What It Is Today? posted Wed Jan 3 2007 22:31:05 by Gyojoo
What The...? Bizarre And Scary Weather Experience! posted Sun May 28 2006 23:43:26 by OzGlobal
What If? Eastern And National Had Merged posted Thu Apr 6 2006 03:32:28 by Kkfla737