3 ms·
> That, in turn, contributed to the company’s extraordinary decision to move its headquarters to Chicago, where it strangely remains—in the historical capital o
by gok 7y ago
> That, in turn, contributed to the company’s extraordinary decision to move its headquarters to Chicago, where it strangely remains—in the historical capital of printing, Pullman cars, and meatpacking—to this day.
Yes, yery "strange" for an airplane manufacture to remain headquartered the same place as the HQ and/or major hub of its largest customer airlines.
- coredog64 7y agoBoeing expected to get a lot more defense work. Having headquarters in a major urban location gave it an additional 2 senators and a couple more reps in the house that could then champion those sales. While final 737 assembly was done in Renton, the fuselages were made in Wichita. Which was also the site of a booming business in remanufacturing Boeing aircraft for both the civilian and military market. Making it out like there’s no good reason to have a more central HQ doesn’t ring true. Finally, it’s not like Boeing didn’t have issues before the merger. They had to take a billion (with a ‘B’) charge on engineering issues with the 737NG tail section. A lot of heads rolled for that. I left before DCAC/MRM finished but I’d find it hard to believe that didn’t go over budget by a similar amount.