Skip to comments.Will Boeing move to Beijing?
Posted on 09/03/2009 5:35:52 AM PDT by Sig Sauer P220
Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney is eager to move the company to China. Whether moving Boeing to China means shifting its headquarters from Chicago to Beijing is up in the air. But Boeing already has $600 million in supplier partnerships with China -- such as a deal with Shenyang Aircraft Corporation to build an assembly for the 787's vertical fin. And Stan Sorscher, who spent 20 years at Boeing before taking a post at the Society of Professional Engineers in Aerospace (SPEEA) in 2000, told me that engineers he spoke with believe that McNerney is hooked on the idea of shifting more of Boeing's aircraft development to China.
Why would a company want to leave Chicago?
They will open a branch in China specifically geared to the Asian market.
I doubt the whole company will move.
Well obambi, here is your chance to help America. But then helping America is where obambi can’t go .....so Boeing will.
Impossible to move their Seattle and Everett facilities.
I’d like to see manufacturing move out of Washington state — just to stick it to the anti-business, anti-capitalist, and union thugs that love to hate that company.
Wyoming may be a good relo site.
Chicago paid Boeing about $63million to move about 500 headquarter jobs from Seattle about 8 years ago.
Maybe China is making a better offer.
Boeing has all but shut down the operations in Wichita....
It's already happening elsewhere. In my state iconic brands like NCR are leaving for greener pastures (Atlanta in the case of NCR). Others are just shuttering plants and facilities, like Chrysler and GM and DHL. But the 'Rats just blame the companies, never themselves or the unions. And the sheeple never blame Obama and the 'Rats, they just keep singing hosannas to the greater glory of The Won.
Hmmmm, can I help Boeing pack?
“We know what you are, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
My guess would be Boeing is fleeing exceedingly high corporate tax rates, along with unions and unnecessary regulation on how they conduct business, like Sarbanes-Oxley. Boeing, and other companies like them, compete globally. It's tough enough to bring in customers, no matter how good your product is, when you have to pass along the second highest corporate tax rate in the world to those customers. Imagine having to deal with our corporate tax rate, the unions, and the cost of excessive gubmint regulation, all while trying to compete against gubmint subsidized Airbust. It's a recipe for disaster for American workers and it's 100% self inflicted by our own gubmint....almost like they want business to fail or move overseas, huh?
So if the president said no, you can’t move, would that be ok or not?
In a word: U-N-I-O-N-S
If the Dems succeed in increasing unionization in the U.S. it will cause havoc for most companies who rely on parts and raw materials from a variety of small, specialty suppliers.
You can’t plan production if you’re coping with one or more suppliers being on strike at any given time, thus interrupting your flow of raw materials/parts, not to mention the impossibility of predicting costs over any extended period of time (higher wages = higher parts costs).
The number of individual parts in a 747 is staggering. My Dad (now deceased) retired from being a purchaser of A/C parts for Boeing and handled the challenge of A/C parts long before computers kept track of all the items required.
About the only ones which would stay would be those which rely on the US military for protection and those who want to do business with the US government (like Boeing, hmmm?).
Yeah, I'm a pilot and I've built a couple of experimentals. The number of individual parts that go into something like my little Europa is staggering, not to mention the effort it took to build it. I can't imagine what it takes to keep up with the parts to build a 747, much less try to source them, then assemble that massive amount of parts into something that will enable you to commit aviation. With that in mind it's a bit disconcerting to think that now a good portion of that process is going to be handed over to the Chinese. The old Boeing moniker might change to "If it is Boeing, I ain't going"
The unions certainly are one large cog in the wheel, and no doubt the Dims are pulling out all the stops to save the unions. Union membership has been in steep decline for several decades and the Dims are clearly trying to stem that. However, you have to ask yourself "what side is the gubmint on?" when they levy 42% corporate tax rates, plus nonsense like Sarbanes-Oxley, and some of the more ridiculous OSHA regulations on companies trying to compete in the world market. It's one thing if everyone in the game is playing by the same rules, but that isn't the case in the global market, courtesy of Uncle Sugar. It's hard to tell if it's a well coordinated effort to run business off shore, or if it's stupidity run amok on the part of our elected "leaders".....
Does this mean that Boeing’s tax breaks in Chicago are going to expire?
Id like to see manufacturing move out of Washington state
Moving offices from Washington state to Chicago was no improvement.
Hmmmm, can I help Boeing pack?
Maybe we could take up a collection to help Boeing defray the cost of moving.
I do believe that the elite ruling class truly believes that building products of any kind for sale is immoral.
They envision a world where everyone lives in a small space and quietly tends a garden, growing vegetables for their consumption, interspersed with reading intellectual tomes and participating in discussions about said tomes.
China is currently building a jet liner to be rolled out in 2014. They are using foreign suppliers for a majority of the airplane. Where China does have capabilities, such as building fuselage sections, wing sections, and empennage sections, McNerney wants to tap into.
As China progresses, they'll be building more of the airplane of course. However, that also means they'll be in a better position to buy more airplanes as well. In the long run, when it is done slowly with the considerations of labor taken into account, out sourcing to China will help Boeing. And Airbus as well. Its win-win for everyone.
So your guess is that Boeing is fleeing exceedingly high corporate tax rates. Are your guesses always so completely uninformed? Between 2005 and 2008 Boeing paid an average corporate tax rate of 3.2%. See: http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/corporate_taxes_2009/who_pays_the_least.asp. Not exactly a backbreaking tax burden, or one that would drive a company overseas. McNerney is making a grave mistake if he thinks China will be satisfied just being a subcontractor. Intel keeps its leading design in house - they would never outsource that, especially in China, who they know want to be a powerhouse in semiconductors.
So nice of you to cherry pick one item out of the list I posted. You are aware, aren't you, that corporations don't pay taxes. They collect taxes. So, even at 3.2% this is money that has to be added to the cost of doing business with companies, like Airbust, that are gubmint subsidized. Did you ever consider that? Or, is this sort of rude, antagonistic post how you get your jollies?
Did you ever consider the embedded taxes paid by Boeing that are incurred by the corporate taxes paid by their suppliers? Were Boeing's suppliers paying (collecting) 3.2% average corporate tax? What about the compliance costs of dealing with ridiculous gubmint regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, not to mention tens of thousands of pages of IRS code with which they must comply? How many employees did Boeing have to hire just to comply with those regulations? What about excessive property taxes? What about tangible taxes paid on every piece of infrastructure used in the production of their product? What about the taxes on services that are essential to business like telephone taxes, taxes on energy, and the like? What about the workman's comp they pay for thousands of employees, all of which is MANDATED by gubmint? How about the compliance costs of OSHA regulations? What about their liability exposure and the costs associated with it, not only on their products, but the liability exposure they incur by allowing vendors, employees and visitors into their facilities daily?
Are your summations always so uninformed? What you know about running a business and the costs associated therein could fit on the point of a pin with plenty of room to spare. Thank you so much for opening your mouth and removing all doubt!
Certainly appears to be the case......