Replies

When Boeing execs chose Chicago over Dallas for their new headquarters location, I knew they couldn't last long. That kind of stupidity does not escape punishment.

Also, Airbus said they had sold about half the number of planes (A380) they need to break even and then said they make money on every plane. Sounds Clintonesque to me.

When Boeing execs chose Chicago over Dallas for their new headquarters location, I knew they couldn't last long. That kind of stupidity does not escape punishment.

Why does the headquarters location matter? I am not arguing, just curious.

The A380 is a new model aircraft. They aren't making it yet, just taking orders. By their calculation, they already have a huge leg up on the number of orders they will need to break even on production of this aircraft. In other words, they are in good shape.

It seems to me the problem is far more than European subsidies. Boeing management needs to do a better job. Yes, it is tough competing against an aircraft that has subsidies, both in manufacturing and in financing of sales. However, as a passenger, I am far more impressed with the cabin design on Airbus jets than I am on Boeing jets. And, the airlines seem to like Airbus design features such as a standarized cockpit.

As for moving to Chicago that was mentioned by someone, I have to agree. The weather in Seattle is no bargain, but at least they do not have Chicago's winters. If they felt it urgent to get out of Seattle, why didn't they move to Texas with its more moderate weather and far lower taxes and friendly business environment. Maybe even Atlanta with its closer proximitry to Europe. But then there is the Asian market which is huge and Seattle is closer. Who knows. To me, it was just one of those decisions that sends a message about the management of Boeing.