Midwestindy wrote:

Surprised it took such a short time to jump ship from Chicago.

I mean they have been at Chicago for 21 years now…

Probably makes sense if the company views its future as being more closely tied to defense contracts than commercial aviation. There's also a bit of tax savings when they return to profitability since the corporate income tax rate in VA is lower than IL.

Pathetic. Says it all, really.

787 program: disaster
737 Max: deadly disaster and PR nightmare
777X: rolling disaster
Embraer deal: dead
NMA: vaporware
Stock price: down a third over the last year
Unions: pwned--I guess?

This DC move should fix it right up!

Can't blame them as they lean more on government contracts to make up for the other strategic management mistakes. That said, I think moving back to their roots in Seattle makes more sense. Being close to 'decision makers' was their excuse 20 years ago, so I guess they employ the same PR firm.

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Moving to "The Beltway" is a pretty normal strategy for defense contractors. Being closer to the money, The Pentagon and Congresspersons making the decisions on defense programs should help the 40% of Boeing (the Defense/Space side) that is currently losing money at a slower pace than the Commercial side.

Now about that Boeing C-Suite? Will there be a housecleaning there, too?

To be fair the leadership that moved HQ out of Seattle area to Chicago is no longer with the company. With Starliner hopefully ready to go for another test soon, might as well go all-in too.

You know they are never going back to Seattle, how else do you keep line workers, picket lines, and strikes non-existent from executive office windows.

IFlyOff wrote:

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Except they are moving to VIRGINIA which IIRC, has higher income taxes than Illinois.

Yes that should help with MoM, NSA, etc. Yeah right...

Maybe this is a cost savings move? They have a huge new office in DC and could eliminate space in Chicago that’s probably expensive.

airbazar wrote:

IFlyOff wrote:

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Except they are moving to VIRGINIA which IIRC, has higher income taxes than Illinois.

No
https://taxfoundation.org/state-corpora ... ates-2021/

And I'm sure you could probably add a myriad of other costs of doing business associated with Chicago and Cook County.

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster
737 Max: deadly disaster and PR nightmare
777X: rolling disaster
Embraer deal: dead
NMA: vaporware
Stock price: down a third over the last year
Unions: pwned--I guess?

This DC move should fix it right up!

Kinda sounds like "Atlas Shrugged"

When Boeing was looking into moving from Seattle they were also considering the DFW area for their headquarters.

Do I sense the word lobbying coming along? I assume this is play to boost defense contracts.

airbazar wrote:

IFlyOff wrote:

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Except they are moving to VIRGINIA which IIRC, has higher income taxes than Illinois.

Companies pay state income tax based on where their sales are sourced and/or where their costs of performance are--not where their headquarters is located. Moving just a corporate HQ without moving operations usually doesn't have much impact on state income tax liability unless they're getting a negotiated incentive package to relocate the HQ to the new state (which I bet they are in this case).

They should be moving back to Everett but seemingly the only thing Boeing learnd from the max fiasco was that that they need to do more lobbying.

If I recall it was last fall Reuters wrote-up how much of a ghost town Chicago HQ really was cause of the usual people working in different places during pandemic, and the city's incentives were going to run out at end of 2021. CEO was in South Carolina a lot, CFO is based on east coast. So why pay full price for a penthouse no one is using regularly.

Plus Boeing already has an office in DC. Kind of like when Oracle re-located HQ out of Silicon Valley, but already had an office in Austin yet the people status quo really stayed the same.

now a 3 hour time difference between headquarters and redmonton/everett ops... but no time difference between headquarters and charleston ops.

can be challenging. i do allot of work across time zones... it's a drag sometimes being up, dressed, and prepared by 5am (my time) for 8am (their time) meetings several times a week..Lots of 4am alarms.

Lootess wrote:

If I recall it was last fall Reuters wrote-up how much of a ghost town Chicago HQ really was cause of the usual people working in different places during pandemic, and the city's incentives were going to run out at end of 2021. CEO was in South Carolina a lot, CFO is based on east coast. So why pay full price for a penthouse no one is using regularly.

Plus Boeing already has an office in DC. Kind of like when Oracle re-located HQ out of Silicon Valley, but already had an office in Austin yet the people status quo really stayed the same.

That's right--the incentives from the City of Chicago expired. Add in Covid and WFH, and they have zero incentive to maintain a costly presence inside the loop.

God forbid Boeing be HQ'd where they actually have, you know, the brunt of their aircraft manufacturing and engineering activities. Boeing hasn't learned a damn thing it would seem. They went from the GE Jack Welch influence to continued cost cutting, the MAX debacle, a new CEO who is just another beancounter. Boeing is still wandering around in the wilderness without a clue, it would seem, more focused on politics than planebuilding.

Opus99 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster
737 Max: deadly disaster and PR nightmare
777X: rolling disaster
Embraer deal: dead
NMA: vaporware
Stock price: down a third over the last year
Unions: pwned--I guess?

This DC move should fix it right up!

Will moving to Seattle fix it? I’m sure you can guess

Point being that HQ location is not the issue

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster
737 Max: deadly disaster and PR nightmare
777X: rolling disaster
Embraer deal: dead
NMA: vaporware
Stock price: down a third over the last year
Unions: pwned--I guess?

This DC move should fix it right up!

Don’t forget it’s not just BCA.
Starliner: issues. Free re-flight. Fixed in May test? Lost missions.
KC-46: financial disaster
AF1: Got Trumped financially

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Lootess wrote:

If I recall it was last fall Reuters wrote-up how much of a ghost town Chicago HQ really was cause of the usual people working in different places during pandemic, and the city's incentives were going to run out at end of 2021. CEO was in South Carolina a lot, CFO is based on east coast. So why pay full price for a penthouse no one is using regularly.

Plus Boeing already has an office in DC. Kind of like when Oracle re-located HQ out of Silicon Valley, but already had an office in Austin yet the people status quo really stayed the same.

That's right--the incentives from the City of Chicago expired. Add in Covid and WFH, and they have zero incentive to maintain a costly presence inside the loop.

God forbid Boeing be HQ'd where they actually have, you know, the brunt of their aircraft manufacturing and engineering activities. Boeing hasn't learned a damn thing it would seem. They went from the GE Jack Welch influence to continued cost cutting, the MAX debacle, a new CEO who is just another beancounter. Boeing is still wandering around in the wilderness without a clue, it would seem, more focused on politics than planebuilding.

Boeing more than commercial airplanes. There’s military aircraft being built in St Louis, space and satellites, services, etc. All of the businesses should have management close to production to oversee activity. Where the CEO and CFO’s offices are should be irrelevant - if they’re looking at a program, they can hop on their private jet and fly there.

ADent wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster
737 Max: deadly disaster and PR nightmare
777X: rolling disaster
Embraer deal: dead
NMA: vaporware
Stock price: down a third over the last year
Unions: pwned--I guess?

This DC move should fix it right up!

Don’t forget it’s not just BCA.
Starliner: issues. Free re-flight. Fixed in May test? Lost missions.
KC-46: financial disaster
AF1: Got Trumped financially

Yep

Move the HQ anywhere, just leave the people in it behind.

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster

Let's not forget the waste of time they spent on the 748 when it was clear the 4-engine WB model was dying.

Guess they will vacate GYY how many planes did they have in Gary .?

mercure1 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

787 program: disaster

Let's not forget the waste of time they spent on the 748 when it was clear the 4-engine WB model was dying.

I think the 748 was spent as a way to provide competition to the A380, and although it failed generally, I think had the cargo market been stronger in the early-mid 2010s, then maybe the 748F may have had slightly better sales. However, they clearly saw sales potential in the 748 (likely only in the F) so I don't think that that alone is an example of Boeing exec "wasting time."

I may be wrong though.

Airbus increasing narrowbody production to 75/month while Boeing targets 47/month. Let's move headquarters again because everything's going great. How far BA has fallen.

sxf24 wrote:

Maybe this is a cost savings move? They have a huge new office in DC and could eliminate space in Chicago that’s probably expensive.

Boeing’s regional HQ campus was built on the north end of Crystal City (in Arlington County). It’s across 395 from the Pentagon and across Rt1 from Amazon’s new east coast HQ.
This move sounds like a no brainer.

Also, not that this has anything to do with their decision, but Airbus NA HQ is in Northern Virginia as well.

Follow the money... And the lobbyists

Waste of money moving expenses nearly $700,000! Not good idea,

Q

Moving a HQ to Washington just to be near the source of Govt cash makes it sound like Boeing has become corrupt and unable to stand on its own two feet in the corporate world.
It's a bit like a former Olympic athlete who is now a drug addict moving home to live next door to their dealer, instead of going into rehab

IFlyOff wrote:

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Doesn't have much application here, because they're really just moving a few offices. Production/assets/people remain in Washington, Carolina, and California, as they were before.

Most corporations are Delaware-based anyway.

dfwjim1 wrote:

When Boeing was looking into moving from Seattle they were also considering the DFW area for their headquarters.

The final three in their public spectacle were ORD, DFW, and DEN... but seemed pretty clear in the aftermath that they never really intended anywhere other than ORD.

Chasing the next taxpayers incentives.

Years ago, my college business course referenced a study someone had made.
It's conclusion, when HQs were relocated, it was to be near where the CEO wanted to be.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Moving a HQ to Washington just to be near the source of Govt cash makes it sound like Boeing has become corrupt and unable to stand on its own two feet in the corporate world.
It's a bit like a former Olympic athlete who is now a drug addict moving home to live next door to their dealer, instead of going into rehab

Northrop and Raytheon also moved HQs to DC area.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Lootess wrote:

If I recall it was last fall Reuters wrote-up how much of a ghost town Chicago HQ really was cause of the usual people working in different places during pandemic, and the city's incentives were going to run out at end of 2021. CEO was in South Carolina a lot, CFO is based on east coast. So why pay full price for a penthouse no one is using regularly.

Plus Boeing already has an office in DC. Kind of like when Oracle re-located HQ out of Silicon Valley, but already had an office in Austin yet the people status quo really stayed the same.

That's right--the incentives from the City of Chicago expired. Add in Covid and WFH, and they have zero incentive to maintain a costly presence inside the loop.

God forbid Boeing be HQ'd where they actually have, you know, the brunt of their aircraft manufacturing and engineering activities. Boeing hasn't learned a damn thing it would seem. They went from the GE Jack Welch influence to continued cost cutting, the MAX debacle, a new CEO who is just another beancounter. Boeing is still wandering around in the wilderness without a clue, it would seem, more focused on politics than planebuilding.

This is kind of the focus of the Seattle Times article. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -virginia/

While not near manufacturing and engineering, Arlington does make more sense than Chicago: the Pentagon and FAA. So, I don't share your pessimism on not learning anything as this could help repair relationships with regulators, something that is MUCH needed.

sxf24 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Moving a HQ to Washington just to be near the source of Govt cash makes it sound like Boeing has become corrupt and unable to stand on its own two feet in the corporate world.
It's a bit like a former Olympic athlete who is now a drug addict moving home to live next door to their dealer, instead of going into rehab

Northrop and Raytheon also moved HQs to DC area.

Yea, this is what major defense contractors do - move to DC area. Its also what companies do with their major customers (operations, not HQ). There is literally nothing corrupt or indicating it can't "stand on its own two feet."

The move does seem to make some sense from a couple of perspectives. The MAX crashes caused huge relationship damage with the FAA, when the events made it appear as though Boeing had deliberately hidden the existence and function of MCAS from their regulator. This damage has cost Boeing immensely. There is the appearance of zero trust between the two. For example, I cannot understand why it took such a long period of time (almost a year!) for Boeing to even submit their 787 certification plan. I mean, nearly a year to just submit a plan, while you're sitting on and still accumulating tens of billions of dollars worth of 787 inventory??? On top of that, the removal of Delegated Authority for certification of new aircraft, which will only further complicate and slow the delivery of all those aircraft.

Justifications aside, I have to say that I think the reactions from the investors would have been more positive had the HQ been moved back to Seattle. They need better integration and alignment between their top executives, and the leadership that best understand their true core product in commercial aircraft. It feels to me like their top brass are still hanging on to the some of the motivations that put them in Chicago in the first place, a desire to be disconnected (and not overwhelmed by) the engineering community in Seattle.

LAX772LR wrote:

IFlyOff wrote:

Very much the trend in the USA for corporations to move from high tax/high regulation states (California, Illinois, New York, etc.) to lower tax/less regulatory bureaucracy states in the south including Florida and Texas.

Doesn't have much application here, because they're really just moving a few offices. Production/assets/people remain in Washington, Carolina, and California, as they were before.

Most corporations are Delaware-based anyway.

The Delaware-based is simply corporate formation, it has no impact on state taxes unless the principal place of business is actually in DE and no impact on regulation (other than corporate organization issues).

sxf24 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Moving a HQ to Washington just to be near the source of Govt cash makes it sound like Boeing has become corrupt and unable to stand on its own two feet in the corporate world.
It's a bit like a former Olympic athlete who is now a drug addict moving home to live next door to their dealer, instead of going into rehab

Northrop and Raytheon also moved HQs to DC area.

Lockheed as well. Most aerospace/defense contractors are based in NoVA now. When Boeing moved to Chicago, most of them were in the process of moving from SoCal to NoVA.

Can't extort another state/city if you don't move every 20 years or so!