14 ms·

Boeing to lay off hundreds more engineers

174 points by yitchelle 10y ago

boschat21 10y ago
Watch it's true https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14142571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14142571
pasbesoin 10y ago
IIRC, the Washington workers are union while the South Carolina workers are not? (Though I don't know about the specific roles/titles involved in this round. But the article raises the open question about S.C. jobs.) Also, I wonder whether and how much of this work is moving overseas. P.S. Quick google reveals: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these-workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these... http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/14348/Machinists-Union-to-Trump-Bring-Boeing-Jobs-Home.aspx http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/1... http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-agrees-to-open-737-center-in-china-inks-300-new-jet-orders/ http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing... The last two are talking about fit, finishing, and parts, and they cite the machinists' union. One might call that a bit apples versus oranges with respect to the OP. Nonetheless, at the time there was language (PR and corporate-speak) about no jobs leaving Everett and potential increased demand increasing headcount there.
- joezydeco 10y ago
  The headline says "engineers", so they're probably not in a union no matter what location they occupy.
  - jamroom 10y ago
    I believe many of the engineers are in the SPEEA: http://www.speea.org/ http://www.speea.org/ "Since January 2016, Boeing has cut 1,332 engineering and technical jobs from its Washington workforce". As a Washingtonian I am _so happy_ we gave Boeing 8.7 billion in tax breaks and incentives. They're taking that money and using it to maintain their work force elsewhere :/
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - gshulegaard 10y ago
      Is there any information indicating that they are moving their workforce elsewhere? The select quoting of the article here implies that the market demand is waning: > The latest job cuts followed a prior involuntary reduction of 245 workers set for May 19 as the company responded to increasing competition and slowing aircraft sales. > "We are moving forward with a second phase of involuntary layoffs for some select skills in Washington state and other enterprise locations," the memo said. "We anticipate this will impact hundreds of engineering employees. Additional reductions in engineering later this year will be driven by our business environment and the amount of voluntary attrition." Sounds like cuts across the board, not cuts in Washington and growth elsewhere.
      - chaostheory 10y ago
        I haven't read anything specific and I could be wrong but it feels like it's just the trend: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-...
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      >>taking that money and using it to maintain their work force elsewhere I'd look at Chicago. That's where the HQ and executives are, right?
    - projectileboy 10y ago
      Very common. Another fun example is the huge tax break MN gave to Northwest Airlines to build an Airbus maintenance facility in northern MN. They took the tax break and never built the facility. Or how about cable companies getting tax breaks to build out high speed internet in rural areas? One could go on...
    - flukus 10y ago
      It's also a sign the company is circling the drain, it's the more qualified people that tend to take voluntary redundancies and take their chances in the job market. This leaves a lot of dead weight behind.
  - civilian 10y ago
    Nope, Washington State Boeing engineers are 100% in a union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Engineering_Employees_in_Aerospace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Engine... http://www.speea.org/ http://www.speea.org/
    - jcadam 10y ago
      IIRC, even most (all?) software engineers working for Boeing in Washington State are required to join the union. I worked for Boeing in Colorado on a major govt satellite program several years ago (non-union in CO of course), and when I received a WARN notice when our contract was ending I began looking around the company for other positions. All the SW Eng jobs I could find in the commercial aviation BU in Washington were listed as being "Union." Blech. I ended up leaving the company after I figured out that Boeing's hiring and transfer policies meant it was easier to quit and apply for jobs as an external applicant, rather than applying as an internal candidate.
      - froindt 10y ago
        I don't know if it's any different for software engineers, but I have a friend who did an industrial engineering internship there a couple years ago. He was treated exactly like a full-time employee (full benefits, 401k, etc.) and had the option to join the union or not. It was barely any more for him to join so he did.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      False. As an engineer you have the option of joining SPEEA, but it is not a requirement. Joining the union offers some benefits, and some people do so for personal/political reasons. One useful benefit was publication on anonymous salary information around raise time. You see exactly where you stand without violating the privacy of your peers. Source: I'm a former Boeing employee (DS9 - Real-time systems simulation engineer)
      - civilian 10y ago
        Right. But if you don't join, you still have to pay union dues, right? That requirement kind of blurs things in my mind.
- kcorbitt 10y ago
  I have a friend who's a long-time engineer at Boeing (in Washington). He'd always complain that union rules were strict to the point of ludicrousness, eg. if he got a new desktop computer he was prohibited from plugging it in himself; he had to file a ticket and get it plugged in by a member of whatever union had staked a claim to that task. Not really related to the article, but yeah, I can't imagine that level of union-driven bureaucracy is good for productivity.
  - jamroom 10y ago
    This isn't union - this is just how huge corporations work. I worked for Verizon and they did the same thing - everything was locked down and you had to file a Remedy ticket to get anything done (ugh).
    - mentat 10y ago
      Verizon is union too.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        Perhaps, but the point is true. Large, traditional companies do this sort of thing. Sometimes because of unions. Others times for "security reasons" or "3rd party contract" reasons, etc.
    - kcorbitt 10y ago
      I don't know... I work for a (non-unionized) company about half the size of Boeing, and we don't have anywhere near that level of bureaucracy, so I have a hard time accepting the premise that "that's just how things have to be." I'm sure there are a lot of contributing factors, but I don't have a hard time imagining unions contributing to process creep by mandating the allocation of tasks in a non-optimal way. I'm no hardcore anti-unionist, but this particular situation seems like a very plausible late-stage union failure mode.
      - drewrv 10y ago
- brightball 10y ago
  Correct on SC being non-union https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these-workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these... Despite a very active campaign for several years.
nickhalfasleep 10y ago
No doubt they will also move more work to their Moscow Design Center: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-spreads-777x-design-work-to-charleston-mosco-392371/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-spreads-77...
- theparanoid 10y ago
  There's 3 jobs total open in Moscow https://jobs.boeing.com/location/russia-jobs/185/2017370/2 https://jobs.boeing.com/location/russia-jobs/185/2017370/2.
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  Not if Trump cancels the Boeing-Iran deal.
- bpicolo 10y ago
  How does that work out with ITAR?
  - tzakrajs 10y ago
    It probably has to be scoped aggressively tight to reduce unlawful export and reviewed by lawyers and business partners that manage regulatory risk.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  Given the troubles that the Russian aerospace industry has with fake diplomas, I doubt that Moscow is where they are moving those jobs. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-modernization-1118 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-moder...
  - thriftwy 10y ago
    Linking technicans' vocational school diploma troubles in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and aerospace engineers hiring in Moscow is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? It's like linking Facebook performance to Obamacare website launch troubles.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
> involuntary layoffs > involuntary reduction As opposed to what? "Boss, 231 of us decided to voluntarily be let go, effective immediately. Yeah, we know, it's a bummer. We also decided to take three months severance pay at half salary. Hey, thanks for everything. Have a nice day!" I sometimes wonder about what might lie behind the twisted language often used by reporters.
- e40 10y ago
  Voluntary reductions are through offers made to older employees for early retirement. It's a very common way of reducing staff, but it's usually done over a number of years (to reach the target).
- gozur88 10y ago
  As opposed to voluntary separations. Many years ago the company I work for offered packages to qualified employees who wanted to leave. People who were already looking or just weren't very happy had the opportunity to pocket (IIRC) six months worth of pay after signing the standard promise not to sue. Usually the way these things work is company management has a reduction goal, and if they meet it there aren't any layoffs. If they don't... well, voluntary becomes involuntary in some cases.
- abduhl 10y ago
  Companies sometimes offer people good deals to leave due to slowing business. If you opted into this you would have been voluntarily laid off. If enough people do it, then there are no involuntary layoffs. Japan Airlines did something similar with early retirement a few years back and offered their employees the chance to retire early in order to cut costs.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  People might voluntarily take a buyout package.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  Never seen one myself but it's entirely possible for a business to solicit volunteers to be laid off [1] or take early retirement [2]. [1] e.g. http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-illustrated-announces-layoffs.html http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-ill... [2] e.g. http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-early-retirement-to-2000-corporate-employees http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-...
AliAdams 10y ago
As opposed to 'Boeing keeps on hundreds of staff they no longer have a need for'?
kingmanaz 10y ago
First they came for the janitors... http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitors http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitor...
- stevenwoo 10y ago
  In case anyone misses the point https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/vdare https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- SamUK96 10y ago
  My favourite bit there: > people so willfully stupid that they will cut each other`s throats while the bankers drain them dry. Divide and conquer. Proven classic.
nullnilvoid 10y ago
All these jobs will be replaced by cheap Indian H-1B visa holders very soon.
madengr 10y ago
Hell, my company encouraged retirement by promising medical coverage, then one year later pulled the coverage on those who took the deal.
- SamUK96 10y ago
  That's actually evil... I find that the withdrawing of medical programs by a company is a pretty reliable indicator that it'll fold in a few years, since it's a common "exit-strategy" to earn a few last bucks before the up-top rats jump ship. Been at two companies who were thriving, and both after only a few months stopped their medical insurance. After that, dozens of people left over 1-2 years, and the company was massively haemorrhaging money due to customer dissatisfaction. False economy.
  - madengr 10y ago
    Hell, a guy a fence with had surgery, then came to find out he had no health insurance as the company stopped paying the premiums and was POCKETING them, including his contribution. Several years later he finally recovered some of the medical costs in a lawsuit.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  everytime i've been offered a company pension somehow months later we were all being laid off. I think i might be some way of making a quick buck. i'm not sure how. maybe up front commission.
tici_88 10y ago
The article mentions 'increased competition'. Is Boeing facing a hard time competing against rivals say Airbus? Are Boeing's latest planes less competitive or is there less orders in the pipeline all across the industry, including at Airbus? I wish the article went into more detail here, this would have been informative.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > Is Boeing facing a hard time competing against rivals say Airbus? Airbus is on a strong run at the moment. However what I think 'competition' means in this sense is design and construction competition within Boeing. The 787 was a $30 billion lesson to Boeing on how to globalise aircraft design and production. They made a mess of it, at least on the initial -8 model, but as a result seem to have learned how to work with global risk-sharing partners; partners who employ their own engineers at their own cost and who design components ( wings, fuselages etc ) at their own cost and risk to a specification provided by Boeing. Much like engine manufacturers already do. And as a result Boeing can also move towards a final-assembly-only paradigm, which further reduces workforce requirements. Smaller companies like Bombardier have already had to make those changes in order to survive and Boeing is being proactive in following them.
- marsRoverDev 10y ago
  Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. A350 program starts, Airbus hires thousands of contract mech engineers. A350 program winds down, those people are let go. I think that Boeing is similar. Lay-offs do not necessarily imply 'increased competition', I think that hasn't changed a whole lot recently. The model is just moving towards highly contractual work with limited managerial permanent roles for the cream of the crop.
  - sigstoat 10y ago
    > Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. i'm given to understand that's pretty common across all of aerospace. get contract, hire, finish contract, fire. it makes for an endless supply of headlines, but isn't actually a surprise to the employees.
hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
Man, I really feel for these workers. When, say, a back end Java developer gets laid off, it's usually not too hard to land on your feet, given the tons of companies that need these skills. If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?
- zipwitch 10y ago
  I wonder if there will be job offers from a certain large country in Asia?
- metaphor 10y ago
  >> If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin? You're kidding[1], right? Beyond the aerospace industry, I can think of more than a few places where the skillset of a talented aerospace engineer would be very much desireable. [1] https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-companies-2015 https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-comp...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- baby 10y ago
  Airbus
- dagw 10y ago
  where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin Besides the big players like Airbus, GE, Northop etc there are a huge number of consulting firms that do specialist work in every aspect of aerospace engineering.
- sigstoat 10y ago
  if there was only one place for these folks to work, they wouldn't be commanding very significant salaries.
metaphor 10y ago
Shitcan 245 engineers...immediately posture to hire 345 more?[1] [1] https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  Because every engineer is the same. /s
- flamedoge 10y ago
  fire seniors, hire juniors?
buster 10y ago
So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you all it, is working right, here.. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment-figures-from-boeing/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employm... [2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9Li4Aw https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9...
- csomar 10y ago
  So many things wrong in this comment: 1. The shareholders own the stock. Not the employees. (though the employees can be shareholders). So the metric you are looking at, is the number of shareholders and distribution of the stock in the hands of these shareholders. 2. The Market Cap is a useless metric unless you specify the volatility of the stock. If your stock can depreciate 30% intra-day, then a 50% increase is not really a wealth appreciation unless you realise it (sell the stock). But, whoops, then you are no longer a shareholder.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though it's been largely flat 2014-2017) In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.
  - buster 10y ago
    Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually, all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.
laughingman2 10y ago
Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit everywhere.
- DiegoNolan 10y ago
  They do own the results of their efforts. It is called their remuneration. If they want to own part of the company they can buy stock in it. It is public. No one is stopping anyone from working at a worker coop if they so desire.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  > Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts Seriously? Haven't we learned anything from the 20th century and the deadly effects of collectivization? We're talking millions of death here.
- nickik 10y ago
  If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer works. The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.
  - chroem- 10y ago
    The market will be irrational longer than you can stay solvent. You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.
    - taway_1212 10y ago
      Modern-style companies have existed for a couple hundred years now. For some reason, co-ops (employee ownership) has had very limited success in that whole time, and across all free market countries. Could that reason be that it's a less effective method of providing value? In economics terms, I think what we have here is the tragedy of the commons - if all employees equally benefit from improving company's situation, what incentive I as an industrious and creative employee have to make the company better? - I'll do the hard work and will only reap a tiny fraction of the reward. Contrast that with an industrious and creative owner, who reaps a large part of the reward, and thus has a huge incentive to constantly improve his company. It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.
bertlequant 10y ago
Product is the stock price. Cost out so executives keep bonuses. Solid tactics
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  For a few years during the current CEO's reign, but how will the next CEO make their mark when the CEO musical chairs game continues?
brianbreslin 10y ago
This is a byproduct of the market DESIGN in aerospace. By having a duopoly rather than either a monopoly or wider competition, you're forcing the margins down to near zero. This means that there is always a CLEAR replacement option for every product made by Boeing or Airbus, and the customers (the airlines) know it. If you had more players (embraer, gulfstream, bombardier, china?) you could have better competition, but there are few large body jet providers in the market. Granted this problem stems from the airplane companies own strategy of trying to get airlines to go single model (all 737s for example) to save on repair/maintenance. Economic theory wise its a fascinating market issue because you have clear view of the buyers and the incentives in the marketplace (also both big players get huge govt subsidies).
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  I think you might be underestimating the impact of slackening demand. Emerging market airlines put in a ton of orders over the past 10 years, now we're seeing them slash airfare prices and/or cancel orders due to continued pressure. You can also point to state-owned/supported enterprises in the Middle East and China which are terrible allocators of capital and have therefore encouraged the glut. Nevermind the strategic imperative of the U.S. and Europe to have exclusive access to a producer of worldwide transports during times of war. There are many examples of duopolies who do just fine. I think you are ignoring the negative influence of ambitious countries in this industry.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    Just FYI there are still markets out there [1] and Boeing is going to try to take advantage of them [2]. [1] http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/21/482955544/boeing-says-it-has-agreed-to-sell-passenger-jets-to-iranian-airline http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/21/482955544/...
  - brianbreslin 10y ago
    What are some good examples of duopolies that do well for both of the players and the market?
sytelus 10y ago
I would have thought there would be hiring spree instead given upcoming large spending in defense and Boeing would be in strong position to capture good portion of it. Why this isn't the case?
- flamedoge 10y ago
  short term margins.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  Uncertainty. Trump seems to flip his public stance on issues after having a 10 minute conversation with someone.
mikekij 10y ago
Events like this highlight the fallacy that big company jobs are stable and secure, while startup jobs are risky. I think the Expected Value of a big company salary stream is probably slightly higher than that of a series of startup salaries, but the difference isn't nearly as large as people fear.
pure_ambition 10y ago
Who else thinks slowing sales is probably due to a supply glut from low interest rates? I know low rates has meant its prime time to invest in capital goods, especially expensive ones. Perhaps they've sold new planes to everyone who wants them, and there's less and less companies interested in buying? Pure speculation, though.

174 points by yitchelle 10y ago

Watch it's true https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14142571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14142571

IIRC, the Washington workers are union while the South Carolina workers are not? (Though I don't know about the specific roles/titles involved in this round. But the article raises the open question about S.C. jobs.) Also, I wonder whether and how much of this work is moving overseas. P.S. Quick google reveals: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these-workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these... http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/14348/Machinists-Union-to-Trump-Bring-Boeing-Jobs-Home.aspx http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/1... http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-agrees-to-open-737-center-in-china-inks-300-new-jet-orders/ http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing... The last two are talking about fit, finishing, and parts, and they cite the machinists' union. One might call that a bit apples versus oranges with respect to the OP. Nonetheless, at the time there was language (PR and corporate-speak) about no jobs leaving Everett and potential increased demand increasing headcount there.

joezydeco 10y ago
The headline says "engineers", so they're probably not in a union no matter what location they occupy.
- jamroom 10y ago
  I believe many of the engineers are in the SPEEA: http://www.speea.org/ http://www.speea.org/ "Since January 2016, Boeing has cut 1,332 engineering and technical jobs from its Washington workforce". As a Washingtonian I am _so happy_ we gave Boeing 8.7 billion in tax breaks and incentives. They're taking that money and using it to maintain their work force elsewhere :/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gshulegaard 10y ago
    Is there any information indicating that they are moving their workforce elsewhere? The select quoting of the article here implies that the market demand is waning: > The latest job cuts followed a prior involuntary reduction of 245 workers set for May 19 as the company responded to increasing competition and slowing aircraft sales. > "We are moving forward with a second phase of involuntary layoffs for some select skills in Washington state and other enterprise locations," the memo said. "We anticipate this will impact hundreds of engineering employees. Additional reductions in engineering later this year will be driven by our business environment and the amount of voluntary attrition." Sounds like cuts across the board, not cuts in Washington and growth elsewhere.
    - chaostheory 10y ago
      I haven't read anything specific and I could be wrong but it feels like it's just the trend: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-...
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    >>taking that money and using it to maintain their work force elsewhere I'd look at Chicago. That's where the HQ and executives are, right?
  - projectileboy 10y ago
    Very common. Another fun example is the huge tax break MN gave to Northwest Airlines to build an Airbus maintenance facility in northern MN. They took the tax break and never built the facility. Or how about cable companies getting tax breaks to build out high speed internet in rural areas? One could go on...
  - flukus 10y ago
    It's also a sign the company is circling the drain, it's the more qualified people that tend to take voluntary redundancies and take their chances in the job market. This leaves a lot of dead weight behind.
- civilian 10y ago
  Nope, Washington State Boeing engineers are 100% in a union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Engineering_Employees_in_Aerospace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Professional_Engine... http://www.speea.org/ http://www.speea.org/
  - jcadam 10y ago
    IIRC, even most (all?) software engineers working for Boeing in Washington State are required to join the union. I worked for Boeing in Colorado on a major govt satellite program several years ago (non-union in CO of course), and when I received a WARN notice when our contract was ending I began looking around the company for other positions. All the SW Eng jobs I could find in the commercial aviation BU in Washington were listed as being "Union." Blech. I ended up leaving the company after I figured out that Boeing's hiring and transfer policies meant it was easier to quit and apply for jobs as an external applicant, rather than applying as an internal candidate.
    - froindt 10y ago
      I don't know if it's any different for software engineers, but I have a friend who did an industrial engineering internship there a couple years ago. He was treated exactly like a full-time employee (full benefits, 401k, etc.) and had the option to join the union or not. It was barely any more for him to join so he did.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    False. As an engineer you have the option of joining SPEEA, but it is not a requirement. Joining the union offers some benefits, and some people do so for personal/political reasons. One useful benefit was publication on anonymous salary information around raise time. You see exactly where you stand without violating the privacy of your peers. Source: I'm a former Boeing employee (DS9 - Real-time systems simulation engineer)
    - civilian 10y ago
      Right. But if you don't join, you still have to pay union dues, right? That requirement kind of blurs things in my mind.
kcorbitt 10y ago
I have a friend who's a long-time engineer at Boeing (in Washington). He'd always complain that union rules were strict to the point of ludicrousness, eg. if he got a new desktop computer he was prohibited from plugging it in himself; he had to file a ticket and get it plugged in by a member of whatever union had staked a claim to that task. Not really related to the article, but yeah, I can't imagine that level of union-driven bureaucracy is good for productivity.
- jamroom 10y ago
  This isn't union - this is just how huge corporations work. I worked for Verizon and they did the same thing - everything was locked down and you had to file a Remedy ticket to get anything done (ugh).
  - mentat 10y ago
    Verizon is union too.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      Perhaps, but the point is true. Large, traditional companies do this sort of thing. Sometimes because of unions. Others times for "security reasons" or "3rd party contract" reasons, etc.
  - kcorbitt 10y ago
    I don't know... I work for a (non-unionized) company about half the size of Boeing, and we don't have anywhere near that level of bureaucracy, so I have a hard time accepting the premise that "that's just how things have to be." I'm sure there are a lot of contributing factors, but I don't have a hard time imagining unions contributing to process creep by mandating the allocation of tasks in a non-optimal way. I'm no hardcore anti-unionist, but this particular situation seems like a very plausible late-stage union failure mode.
    - drewrv 10y ago
brightball 10y ago
Correct on SC being non-union https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these-workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these... Despite a very active campaign for several years.

nickhalfasleep 10y ago

No doubt they will also move more work to their Moscow Design Center: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-spreads-777x-design-work-to-charleston-mosco-392371/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-spreads-77...

theparanoid 10y ago
There's 3 jobs total open in Moscow https://jobs.boeing.com/location/russia-jobs/185/2017370/2 https://jobs.boeing.com/location/russia-jobs/185/2017370/2.
aub3bhat 10y ago
Not if Trump cancels the Boeing-Iran deal.
bpicolo 10y ago
How does that work out with ITAR?
- tzakrajs 10y ago
  It probably has to be scoped aggressively tight to reduce unlawful export and reviewed by lawyers and business partners that manage regulatory risk.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Given the troubles that the Russian aerospace industry has with fake diplomas, I doubt that Moscow is where they are moving those jobs. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-modernization-1118 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake-moder...
- thriftwy 10y ago
  Linking technicans' vocational school diploma troubles in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and aerospace engineers hiring in Moscow is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? It's like linking Facebook performance to Obamacare website launch troubles.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

> involuntary layoffs > involuntary reduction As opposed to what? "Boss, 231 of us decided to voluntarily be let go, effective immediately. Yeah, we know, it's a bummer. We also decided to take three months severance pay at half salary. Hey, thanks for everything. Have a nice day!" I sometimes wonder about what might lie behind the twisted language often used by reporters.

e40 10y ago
Voluntary reductions are through offers made to older employees for early retirement. It's a very common way of reducing staff, but it's usually done over a number of years (to reach the target).
gozur88 10y ago
As opposed to voluntary separations. Many years ago the company I work for offered packages to qualified employees who wanted to leave. People who were already looking or just weren't very happy had the opportunity to pocket (IIRC) six months worth of pay after signing the standard promise not to sue. Usually the way these things work is company management has a reduction goal, and if they meet it there aren't any layoffs. If they don't... well, voluntary becomes involuntary in some cases.
abduhl 10y ago
Companies sometimes offer people good deals to leave due to slowing business. If you opted into this you would have been voluntarily laid off. If enough people do it, then there are no involuntary layoffs. Japan Airlines did something similar with early retirement a few years back and offered their employees the chance to retire early in order to cut costs.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
People might voluntarily take a buyout package.
RandomOpinion 10y ago
Never seen one myself but it's entirely possible for a business to solicit volunteers to be laid off [1] or take early retirement [2]. [1] e.g. http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-illustrated-announces-layoffs.html http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-ill... [2] e.g. http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-early-retirement-to-2000-corporate-employees http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-...

AliAdams 10y ago

As opposed to 'Boeing keeps on hundreds of staff they no longer have a need for'?

kingmanaz 10y ago

First they came for the janitors... http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitors http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitor...

stevenwoo 10y ago
In case anyone misses the point https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/vdare https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
SamUK96 10y ago
My favourite bit there: > people so willfully stupid that they will cut each other`s throats while the bankers drain them dry. Divide and conquer. Proven classic.

nullnilvoid 10y ago

All these jobs will be replaced by cheap Indian H-1B visa holders very soon.

madengr 10y ago

Hell, my company encouraged retirement by promising medical coverage, then one year later pulled the coverage on those who took the deal.

SamUK96 10y ago
That's actually evil... I find that the withdrawing of medical programs by a company is a pretty reliable indicator that it'll fold in a few years, since it's a common "exit-strategy" to earn a few last bucks before the up-top rats jump ship. Been at two companies who were thriving, and both after only a few months stopped their medical insurance. After that, dozens of people left over 1-2 years, and the company was massively haemorrhaging money due to customer dissatisfaction. False economy.
- madengr 10y ago
  Hell, a guy a fence with had surgery, then came to find out he had no health insurance as the company stopped paying the premiums and was POCKETING them, including his contribution. Several years later he finally recovered some of the medical costs in a lawsuit.
jlebrech 10y ago
everytime i've been offered a company pension somehow months later we were all being laid off. I think i might be some way of making a quick buck. i'm not sure how. maybe up front commission.

tici_88 10y ago

The article mentions 'increased competition'. Is Boeing facing a hard time competing against rivals say Airbus? Are Boeing's latest planes less competitive or is there less orders in the pipeline all across the industry, including at Airbus? I wish the article went into more detail here, this would have been informative.

dingaling 10y ago
> Is Boeing facing a hard time competing against rivals say Airbus? Airbus is on a strong run at the moment. However what I think 'competition' means in this sense is design and construction competition within Boeing. The 787 was a $30 billion lesson to Boeing on how to globalise aircraft design and production. They made a mess of it, at least on the initial -8 model, but as a result seem to have learned how to work with global risk-sharing partners; partners who employ their own engineers at their own cost and who design components ( wings, fuselages etc ) at their own cost and risk to a specification provided by Boeing. Much like engine manufacturers already do. And as a result Boeing can also move towards a final-assembly-only paradigm, which further reduces workforce requirements. Smaller companies like Bombardier have already had to make those changes in order to survive and Boeing is being proactive in following them.
marsRoverDev 10y ago
Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. A350 program starts, Airbus hires thousands of contract mech engineers. A350 program winds down, those people are let go. I think that Boeing is similar. Lay-offs do not necessarily imply 'increased competition', I think that hasn't changed a whole lot recently. The model is just moving towards highly contractual work with limited managerial permanent roles for the cream of the crop.
- sigstoat 10y ago
  > Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. i'm given to understand that's pretty common across all of aerospace. get contract, hire, finish contract, fire. it makes for an endless supply of headlines, but isn't actually a surprise to the employees.

hn_throwaway_99 10y ago

Man, I really feel for these workers. When, say, a back end Java developer gets laid off, it's usually not too hard to land on your feet, given the tons of companies that need these skills. If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?

zipwitch 10y ago
I wonder if there will be job offers from a certain large country in Asia?
metaphor 10y ago
>> If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin? You're kidding[1], right? Beyond the aerospace industry, I can think of more than a few places where the skillset of a talented aerospace engineer would be very much desireable. [1] https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-companies-2015 https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace-comp...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
baby 10y ago
Airbus
dagw 10y ago
where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin Besides the big players like Airbus, GE, Northop etc there are a huge number of consulting firms that do specialist work in every aspect of aerospace engineering.
sigstoat 10y ago
if there was only one place for these folks to work, they wouldn't be commanding very significant salaries.

metaphor 10y ago

Shitcan 245 engineers...immediately posture to hire 345 more?[1] [1] https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer

cscurmudgeon 10y ago
Because every engineer is the same. /s
flamedoge 10y ago
fire seniors, hire juniors?

buster 10y ago

So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you all it, is working right, here.. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment-figures-from-boeing/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employm... [2] https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9Li4Aw https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9...

csomar 10y ago
So many things wrong in this comment: 1. The shareholders own the stock. Not the employees. (though the employees can be shareholders). So the metric you are looking at, is the number of shareholders and distribution of the stock in the hands of these shareholders. 2. The Market Cap is a useless metric unless you specify the volatility of the stock. If your stock can depreciate 30% intra-day, then a 50% increase is not really a wealth appreciation unless you realise it (sell the stock). But, whoops, then you are no longer a shareholder.
Ntrails 10y ago
I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though it's been largely flat 2014-2017) In many ways you'd expect a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.
- buster 10y ago
  Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually, all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.

laughingman2 10y ago

Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit everywhere.

DiegoNolan 10y ago
They do own the results of their efforts. It is called their remuneration. If they want to own part of the company they can buy stock in it. It is public. No one is stopping anyone from working at a worker coop if they so desire.
patrickaljord 10y ago
> Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts Seriously? Haven't we learned anything from the 20th century and the deadly effects of collectivization? We're talking millions of death here.
nickik 10y ago
If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer works. The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.
- chroem- 10y ago
  The market will be irrational longer than you can stay solvent. You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.
  - taway_1212 10y ago
    Modern-style companies have existed for a couple hundred years now. For some reason, co-ops (employee ownership) has had very limited success in that whole time, and across all free market countries. Could that reason be that it's a less effective method of providing value? In economics terms, I think what we have here is the tragedy of the commons - if all employees equally benefit from improving company's situation, what incentive I as an industrious and creative employee have to make the company better? - I'll do the hard work and will only reap a tiny fraction of the reward. Contrast that with an industrious and creative owner, who reaps a large part of the reward, and thus has a huge incentive to constantly improve his company. It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.

bertlequant 10y ago

Product is the stock price. Cost out so executives keep bonuses. Solid tactics

okreallywtf 10y ago
For a few years during the current CEO's reign, but how will the next CEO make their mark when the CEO musical chairs game continues?

brianbreslin 10y ago

This is a byproduct of the market DESIGN in aerospace. By having a duopoly rather than either a monopoly or wider competition, you're forcing the margins down to near zero. This means that there is always a CLEAR replacement option for every product made by Boeing or Airbus, and the customers (the airlines) know it. If you had more players (embraer, gulfstream, bombardier, china?) you could have better competition, but there are few large body jet providers in the market. Granted this problem stems from the airplane companies own strategy of trying to get airlines to go single model (all 737s for example) to save on repair/maintenance. Economic theory wise its a fascinating market issue because you have clear view of the buyers and the incentives in the marketplace (also both big players get huge govt subsidies).

dforrestwilson1 10y ago
I think you might be underestimating the impact of slackening demand. Emerging market airlines put in a ton of orders over the past 10 years, now we're seeing them slash airfare prices and/or cancel orders due to continued pressure. You can also point to state-owned/supported enterprises in the Middle East and China which are terrible allocators of capital and have therefore encouraged the glut. Nevermind the strategic imperative of the U.S. and Europe to have exclusive access to a producer of worldwide transports during times of war. There are many examples of duopolies who do just fine. I think you are ignoring the negative influence of ambitious countries in this industry.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  Just FYI there are still markets out there [1] and Boeing is going to try to take advantage of them [2]. [1] http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/21/482955544/boeing-says-it-has-agreed-to-sell-passenger-jets-to-iranian-airline http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/21/482955544/...
- brianbreslin 10y ago
  What are some good examples of duopolies that do well for both of the players and the market?

sytelus 10y ago

I would have thought there would be hiring spree instead given upcoming large spending in defense and Boeing would be in strong position to capture good portion of it. Why this isn't the case?

flamedoge 10y ago
short term margins.
devopsproject 10y ago
Uncertainty. Trump seems to flip his public stance on issues after having a 10 minute conversation with someone.

mikekij 10y ago

Events like this highlight the fallacy that big company jobs are stable and secure, while startup jobs are risky. I think the Expected Value of a big company salary stream is probably slightly higher than that of a series of startup salaries, but the difference isn't nearly as large as people fear.

pure_ambition 10y ago

Who else thinks slowing sales is probably due to a supply glut from low interest rates? I know low rates has meant its prime time to invest in capital goods, especially expensive ones. Perhaps they've sold new planes to everyone who wants them, and there's less and less companies interested in buying? Pure speculation, though.