Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:28 PM
 
3,969 posts, read 13,625,054 times
Reputation: 1576

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grastus View Post
People here are being way too alarmist. This isn't Boeing leaving WA in one fell swoop. It's opening one new production line for the 787, which amounts to about 4,000 new jobs, in SC. Engineering, finance, hell, even headquarters (Commercial Airplanes, not corporate as a whole) will stay in Puget Sound.

It makes sense to move blue-collar to SC. It doesn't make sense to move engineering on the same scale of numbers.
Ever hear the word, "trend"?

That is the key word here. We can ignore these little "reorganizations", but if anyone has followed this for the past decade, the "trend" is to eventually move most of Boeing out of the Seattle region. I can't believe more of you don't see this. Go ahead, look the other way, and soon you will see what what was there, will soon be gone. Please wake up. More importantly, state government needs to wake up. Yes, I agree, this won't happen overnight, but if you look at what has happened the past 10-15 years, the writing is on the wall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:42 PM
 
44 posts, read 165,327 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
Ever hear the word, "trend"?

That is the key word here. We can ignore these little "reorganizations", but if anyone has followed this for the past decade, the "trend" is to eventually move most of Boeing out of the Seattle region. I can't believe more of you don't see this. Go ahead, look the other way, and soon you will see what what was there, will soon be gone. Please wake up. More importantly, state government needs to wake up. Yes, I agree, this won't happen overnight, but if you look at what has happened the past 10-15 years, the writing is on the wall.
Tell me why they would want to fire every engineer here and re-hire them all in SC, or really, anywhere else.

You want trends? I gave one earlier in this thread. When the Big 3 automakers shifted manufacturing elsewhere, the engineering, finance, and HQ was (and is) still in the Detroit area.

And stop saying "the writing is on the wall". I swear, every other comment on the PI's website has that stupid cliched phrase in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:47 PM
 
3,969 posts, read 13,625,054 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by grastus View Post
Tell me why they would want to fire every engineer here and re-hire them all in SC, or really, anywhere else.

You want trends? I gave one earlier in this thread. When the Big 3 automakers shifted manufacturing elsewhere, the engineering, finance, and HQ was (and is) still in the Detroit area.

And stop saying "the writing is on the wall". I swear, every other comment on the PI's website has that stupid cliched phrase in it.
And how is that working for Detroit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:49 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,003 posts, read 12,328,324 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by grastus View Post
Tell me why they would want to fire every engineer here and re-hire them all in SC, or really, anywhere else.

You want trends? I gave one earlier in this thread. When the Big 3 automakers shifted manufacturing elsewhere, the engineering, finance, and HQ was (and is) still in the Detroit area.

And stop saying "the writing is on the wall". I swear, every other comment on the PI's website has that stupid cliched phrase in it.
I can give a rationale for moving the engineering elsewhere ... $.

I get paid in the mid 70s for an engineer with 6 years experience.

A similar engineer in the St. Louis region gets paid 2/3 that.

For Boeing to make a reasonable profit on an airplane, from start to finish in a program, typically you charge 125-150 bucks an hour. If Boeing can cut their engineering wages by 1/3, they would save nearly $1 billion a year, and add that to the bottom line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:52 PM
 
44 posts, read 165,327 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
And how is that working for Detroit?
No differently than it would anywhere else, I'd imagine. Ford and Chevy have essentially caught up to the Japanese in terms of engineering prowess (not sure about Chrysler, as it's the redheaded stepchild of the 3), and Fusions/Malibus are selling like hotcakes.

GM and Chrysler went down mainly because of union greed ("we want even MORE benefits!") and management's stupidity ("We're Americans and we all drive big cars, mkay?"). Boeing is now ditching the union, and while management may have screwed the pooch in terms of its outsourcing model, it's far from resorting to "b-b-but you should support your country's business!" and outright denying what their customers want. The 787, in terms of orders so far, is still pretty damn popular, and Airbus seems to be quite far from getting its answer to the 787 on any sort of production line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 10:55 PM
 
44 posts, read 165,327 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
I can give a rationale for moving the engineering elsewhere ... $.

I get paid in the mid 70s for an engineer with 6 years experience.

A similar engineer in the St. Louis region gets paid 2/3 that.

For Boeing to make a reasonable profit on an airplane, from start to finish in a program, typically you charge 125-150 bucks an hour. If Boeing can cut their engineering wages by 1/3, they would save nearly $1 billion a year, and add that to the bottom line.
But the talent pool just isn't there. Yeah, that's what they said about the blue-collar guys, but they don't need nearly as much training as aerospace engineers do. The fact that Boeing IDS hasn't abandoned Seattle entirely for California and Missouri should be enough proof that Boeing has faith in the engineers here, and doesn't mind paying them more. It's the production line workers they have to get a leash onto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 11:09 PM
 
3,969 posts, read 13,625,054 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by grastus View Post
But the talent pool just isn't there. Yeah, that's what they said about the blue-collar guys, but they don't need nearly as much training as aerospace engineers do. The fact that Boeing IDS hasn't abandoned Seattle entirely for California and Missouri should be enough proof that Boeing has faith in the engineers here, and doesn't mind paying them more. It's the production line workers they have to get a leash onto.
That's just it. In today's economy many, if not most, of these workers will move to keep their jobs. And that is bad for the NW economy, whatever spin you want to apply. Washington State needs unions to concede to some extent, or the State will lose jobs, pure and simple. Do I agree with this premise? No, not entirely. However, for the region to continue to flourish, this mindset must change. Again, not to over-use Michigan as an example, but WA will be the next MI in industrial production if changes are not made.

One caveat, as I have mentioned in a previous post, WA is a more desirable place to live, and unlike MI, there is a much greater potential for start-ups in this part of the country. A likely savior. But just sad that we are letting these industrial jobs vanish into thin air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 11:36 PM
 
343 posts, read 1,083,258 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
That's just it. In today's economy many, if not most, of these workers will move to keep their jobs. And that is bad for the NW economy, whatever spin you want to apply. Washington State needs unions to concede to some extent, or the State will lose jobs, pure and simple. Do I agree with this premise? No, not entirely. However, for the region to continue to flourish, this mindset must change. Again, not to over-use Michigan as an example, but WA will be the next MI in industrial production if changes are not made.

One caveat, as I have mentioned in a previous post, WA is a more desirable place to live, and unlike MI, there is a much greater potential for start-ups in this part of the country. A likely savior. But just sad that we are letting these industrial jobs vanish into thin air.
And Washington also has the timber industry (Weyerhaeuser and Plum Creek Timber) and is a biotechnological hub (ZymoGenetics, Oncothyreon, Dendreon, Trubion). Also, the Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma are major U.S. ports, and we have a thriving maritime industry (American Seafoods, Trident Seafoods, Expeditors International). Detroit was so dependent on the big three, but here in Seattle, if Boeing were to completely pack up and leave (which I find unlikely though not impossible), we have things to fall back on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 11:36 PM
 
121 posts, read 337,088 times
Reputation: 58
If South Carolina is such a no-brainer in terms of worker costs, taxes, and general business environment, why did the state government offer a couple hundred million dollars in "loans" and subsidies? I could understand if they waived taxes for Boeing -- which incidentally the state of Washington did in 2003 -- but why does such an advantageous business state need to offer so much in direct subsidies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 01:08 AM
 
Location: rain city
2,957 posts, read 12,693,802 times
Reputation: 4973
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicsFan93 View Post
And Washington also has the timber industry (Weyerhaeuser and Plum Creek Timber) and is a biotechnological hub (ZymoGenetics, Oncothyreon, Dendreon, Trubion). Also, the Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma are major U.S. ports, and we have a thriving maritime industry (American Seafoods, Trident Seafoods, Expeditors International). Detroit was so dependent on the big three, but here in Seattle, if Boeing were to completely pack up and leave (which I find unlikely though not impossible), we have things to fall back on.
Those places are all fine , but hardly hold a candle to the impact Boeing has on employment in the Puget Sound.

Boeing is the Puget Sound's number one biggest employer. Period.
Attached Thumbnails
Boeing-top-10-ps-employers_2003-600x395.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top