Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Stitch wrote:Scott Hamilton is correct that Boeing and WA will need to work together to continue Commercial operations in WA, but he also correctly notes it is a two-way street where both sides have to be willing to work towards that goal and not play one or the other (or both) against each other to try and get the better deal.
Breathe wrote:I bet the Boeing Execs are glad they moved the HQ to Chicago, otherwise they would have had thousands of people at their front door in Seattle after they made this announcement.
Stitch wrote:It's too simple to claim generically that "Washington State is bad for business" considering how much Microsoft and Amazon continue to expand their operations and other major companies are setting up satellite offices.
The State, the counties and the cities have all given much to Boeing, and to be fair, Boeing has given much back in terms of employment (direct and ancillary), tax revenue, corporate sponsorships, and other things. But no major corporation wants to be beholden to one geographic location so no matter what WA gave Boeing, Boeing was always going to want to have facilities elsewhere.
CHS won not just because it is a Right to Work state - CHS was an IAM shop under Vought and early Boeing ownership. CHS also won because the state gave Boeing a billion in incentives to come and the lower cost of living allowed Boeing to pay a lower wage than in WA while still being sufficient for the workforce to feel well-compensated.
Scott Hamilton is correct (if that's what he asserted) that Boeing and WA will need to work together to continue Commercial operations in WA, but he also correctly notes it is a two-way street where both sides have to be willing to work towards that goal and not play one or the other (or both) against each other to try and get the better deal.
mxaxai wrote:Sokes wrote:Lootess wrote:
It is a bad idea to keep your engineering unit separate from production. Airbus, for example, has their engineering for certain components adjacent to the plant where these are assembled. Wing design and manufacturing are done in the UK, fuselage design and assembly are done in Germany, ... but the large plants are still linked by daily shuttle flights to provide support and facilitate exchange.
Separation leads to poor communication, and poor communication leads to manufacturing failures like the early 787 or A380.
I agree in general, but the 787 doesn't have major ongoing design. So some of the 787 engineers will likely be moved, but I expect the bulk of the engineering workforce to remain in Washington, unless a major development program is located out of the region.JonesNL wrote:While Cali and NY are the worst, but despite this most businesses flok to these states. I wonder why...
Revelation wrote:Breathe wrote:I bet the Boeing Execs are glad they moved the HQ to Chicago, otherwise they would have had thousands of people at their front door in Seattle after they made this announcement.
As the linked article suggests, the headquarters for Boeing Commercial Airplanes is at Longacres in Renton, plenty of opportunities for protests there or elsewhere in the Puget Sound area should people feel the urge. Not sure I'd set up the cameras just yet though.
The article suggests that Boeing isn't even bothering to engage the WA delegations on big decisions any more. It seems everyone involved knows that whatever WA has to offer is not going to meet what Boeing is looking for. It really is up to WA state to change that dynamic or face the consequences.
Revelation wrote:The problem for WA state is that the main metric Boeing cares about is cost, and it's hard to see how WA can match other regions on cost.
texl1649 wrote:MSFT and AMZ are not industrial companies; those are white collar/tech jobs. Industrial/manufacturing jobs don't make any sense in Washington (nor in IL/NY/CA; the move to IL for BA HQ was just for the HQ operations, largely to be away from future labor conflagrations) for the reasons cited in the many articles I listed. (Also note that the percent of Amazon employees in Washington vs. the total has been steadily decreasing; it's just a huge/rapidly growing company, period).
Stitch wrote:Revelation wrote:The problem for WA state is that the main metric Boeing cares about is cost, and it's hard to see how WA can match other regions on cost.
Well if WA just can't win future business because of the cost structure imbalance, then perhaps Governor Inslee is correct to just take what he can from Boeing while he can since they will leave, regardless.
texl1649 wrote:MSFT and AMZ are not industrial companies; those are white collar/tech jobs. Industrial/manufacturing jobs don't make any sense in Washington (nor in IL/NY/CA; the move to IL for BA HQ was just for the HQ operations, largely to be away from future labor conflagrations) for the reasons cited in the many articles I listed. (Also note that the percent of Amazon employees in Washington vs. the total has been steadily decreasing; it's just a huge/rapidly growing company, period).
Well one can argue that white collar / tech jobs generate more economic revenue than industrial / manufacturing so perhaps those are the jobs a State should be going after.
And yes, while Amazon is adding plenty of low-wage warehouse workers outside of WA, they are adding 25,000 high-wage corporate workers inside WA with their massive expansion in Bellevue (which is across Lake Washington from their Seattle HQ),
texl1649 wrote:Stitch wrote:It's too simple to claim generically that "Washington State is bad for business" considering how much Microsoft and Amazon continue to expand their operations and other major companies are setting up satellite offices.
The State, the counties and the cities have all given much to Boeing, and to be fair, Boeing has given much back in terms of employment (direct and ancillary), tax revenue, corporate sponsorships, and other things. But no major corporation wants to be beholden to one geographic location so no matter what WA gave Boeing, Boeing was always going to want to have facilities elsewhere.
CHS won not just because it is a Right to Work state - CHS was an IAM shop under Vought and early Boeing ownership. CHS also won because the state gave Boeing a billion in incentives to come and the lower cost of living allowed Boeing to pay a lower wage than in WA while still being sufficient for the workforce to feel well-compensated.
Scott Hamilton is correct (if that's what he asserted) that Boeing and WA will need to work together to continue Commercial operations in WA, but he also correctly notes it is a two-way street where both sides have to be willing to work towards that goal and not play one or the other (or both) against each other to try and get the better deal.
MSFT and AMZ are not industrial companies; those are white collar/tech jobs. Industrial/manufacturing jobs don't make any sense in Washington (nor in IL/NY/CA; the move to IL for BA HQ was just for the HQ operations, largely to be away from future labor conflagrations) for the reasons cited in the many articles I listed. (Also note that the percent of Amazon employees in Washington vs. the total has been steadily decreasing; it's just a huge/rapidly growing company, period).
I've stopped reading Scott Hamilton as he is a political hot head himself, who is also blinded by his dislike of Boeing (and Trump/GOP). The 2008 strike really cemented the future of the company. The cost of living, environmental, taxation, regulatory, and labor laws in Washington have only grown more onerous over the past 12 years. Further, there's essentially no advantage to producing the products in WA in the future (speaking of NSA and beyond), just as the "Detroit 3" realized when they diversified beyond Michigan (thanks to supply/demand and resource shifts including steel). Any NSA is unlikely to need the expert riveters from the 737, for instance. NMA/MOM, I dunno, but that depends if it's based on the 767 frame itself.
Finally, on the "incredible quality" of WA Boeing workers, the hostility/contradiction is palpable. The KC-46 and MAX FOD problems also put some of that 'quality/loyalty' lie to rest.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20190312.aspx
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... 020-2?op=1
SteelChair wrote:Imho, its not just about the labor costs in SEA, its also about the strikes and slowdowns.
texl1649 wrote:The 2008 strike really cemented the future of the company.
Revelation wrote:The Air Current ( https://theaircurrent.com/industry-stra ... he-making/ ) reports a former Boeing executive as saying the plan has always been to move 787 production to CHS. The thought was that they would need room in PAE to build new products, but now we know that isn't likely to happen any time soon. It suggests CHS was built right from the start with the plan in mind to eventually take over all 787 production.
texl1649 wrote:Finally, on the "incredible quality" of WA Boeing workers, the hostility/contradiction is palpable. The KC-46 and MAX FOD problems also put some of that 'quality/loyalty' lie to rest.
slider wrote:SteelChair wrote:Imho, its not just about the labor costs in SEA, its also about the strikes and slowdowns.
And an absolutely hostile business environment in WA. Gov Inslee already made threats to Boeing. Sorry dude, you should've thought of that sooner. More employees can afford a better quality of life in SC than in WA. Each have benefits, but economically, Boeing does what's in its best interests. The political hollering about this is riotous, actually.
Cubsrule wrote:777Mech wrote:Channex757 wrote:
Not often I agree with you but....
I can see Boeing closing their Boeing Field operations in the medium term and relocating to another Right To Work location (not necessarily Charleston). The 737 replacement will go out of the state. That just leaves Everett with two limited time programs building the KC46 and 777X. What happens then?
Its funny you bring up the MAX relocation, I had seen on a railroad forum some months ago that BNSF/Norfolk Southern were asked by an unidentified customer to determine if oversize "barrels" could be transported through their system, specifically to Middle GA regional airport.
It could have been Boeing, but I don't think they have a presence there at all, but Embraer does. I'm not familiar at all with MCN . I'm not even sure they have the space or runway length for any sort of production.
MCN has plenty of space (the footprint of Boeing Charleston could fit on vacant land on airport property with room to spare), but runway length is an issue; the principal runway is only 6,500 feet.
iamlucky13 wrote:The comments I see in the free part of the article actually seem refreshingly Everett-oriented.
Of course, that is not inconsistent with wanting access to lower labor and tax costs and reducing the risk of union turmoil. However, it sounds like they weren't in a rush to look for a pretense to shut Everett's 787 line down until they had something else in the works to use the space. I think otherwise they could have justified 2 lines for another 5-10 years or more. Unfortunately, that's been upended.
I don't know if someone has a map of how the building space is currently used, but it seems like whenever NSA is ready to go, there's going to be lots of room in Everett between 787 FAL, 777 legacy wings, 777X low rate initial FAL (being combined with legacy 777?), and the 747 wings, fuselage, and FAL lines.
However, the Everett workers have a long wait ahead of them before a new program would arrive.