Amazon Launches Search for a Second Headquarters City in North America... (Dallas: grocer, foods)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

Well maybe Atlanta can right the ship with that. DFW wasn't always together (see Boeing) and really still isn't but city leaders learned their lesson from Boeing.

Can we please let that BS die?

Boeing HQ moved to Chicago because of sailing and little else.


Hint the then CEO of Boeing was a big sailor.

[Johnhw2]

I think DFW would be ideal for a Google second HQ. I continue to be baffled by the idea of a second HQ. Why would you do this other than to play one location agains the other in terms of business attractiveness? What examples are their of companies with two HQ?

I can see if Amazon is considering a spin off that splitting HQ for the two business compenents they might separate into different companies but there is no pattern of this in Amazon's history or its pattern of business growth through acquisitions and expansions of its direct business activity such as Whole Foods.

Can anyone give me an example of a company that has two HQ's? I know Shell had two HQ in Europe, one is The Hague and one in London which reflected the roots of the combined company. I do not know if they still maintain that concept however. Why would a company do this? I am not looking for answers but wanted to raise this perspective again. This is not an attempt to hijack this thread

[Alewife]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

I think DFW would be ideal for a Google second HQ. I continue to be baffled by the idea of a second HQ. Why would you do this other than to play one location agains the other in terms of business attractiveness? What examples are their of companies with two HQ?

I can see if Amazon is considering a spin off that splitting HQ for the two business compenents they might separate into different companies but there is no pattern of this in Amazon's history or its pattern of business growth through acquisitions and expansions of its direct business activity such as Whole Foods.

Can anyone give me an example of a company that has two HQ's? I know Shell had two HQ in Europe, one is The Hague and one in London which reflected the roots of the combined company. I do not know if they still maintain that concept however. Why would a company do this? I am not looking for answers but wanted to raise this perspective again. This is not an attempt to hijack this thread

The company may be running up against limits on COL as well as practical limits on logistics and physical plant. Yet wants to maintain its Pacific Northwest identity and worker base.

[Alewife]

I could foresee a day not too distant when it's also competing head to head with FedEx to ship any packages, not just its own.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

Can anyone give me an example of a company that has two HQ's? I know Shell had two HQ in Europe, one is The Hague and one in London which reflected the roots of the combined company. I do not know if they still maintain that concept however. Why would a company do this? I am not looking for answers but wanted to raise this perspective again. This is not an attempt to hijack this thread

Besides Shell, other examples in the O&G industry are Schlumberger and Haliburton and as we know these O&G service companies have ops spread across different areas, in fact across different continents of the entire globe.
If a company has multiple HDs it's for marketing or operating reasons but in fact, in reality we know
that a company only has a single Headquarters and of course that's where the CEO resides and spends most of his/her time. Therefor in the case of Amazon I'm pretty confidant the HDs will remain in the PAC-NW because JB seems like a real Seattle kind a guy, Billy-Bob he's not so maybe that gives places like North Texas and & ATL faint hope that they might land the second, nominal Amazon HDqs.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by walker1962

Raleigh's a better choice than Charlotte. It is closer to Duke, NC, and NC State and has somewhat of a Tech hub with the Research Triangle. I've lived in Atlanta and now in Dallas. I've always felt Atlanta has not done enough to improve its livability and has actually regressed due to failure to improve its regional mobility, add a second airport (a site was actually picked in Gwinnett County northeast of the City but the county locals balked.) and plan for expanding water needs. There is a true lack of cooperation between the city and suburbs which is not the case for DFW. DFW did a metro-wide presentation that would never happen in Atlanta. its a Rob-Peter-to-Pay Paul mentality.

Raleigh is more quaint and a great city, but Charlotte has more of an urban core center. Both are great cities, and both have nice suburbs if that is what someone is looking for.

Fort Worth is more like Charlotte, and Dallas is bigger then both, so the DFW area has more to offer in general, and is a lot closer then Raleigh and Charlotte are.

[Alewife]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Raleigh is more quaint and a great city, but Charlotte has more of an urban core center. Both are great cities, and both have nice suburbs if that is what someone is looking for.

Fort Worth is more like Charlotte, and Dallas is bigger then both, so the DFW area has more to offer in general, and is a lot closer then Raleigh and Charlotte are.

But with Charlotte you get the Fort Worth without having to deal with the Dallas stuff.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by Alewife

But with Charlotte you get the Fort Worth without having to deal with the Dallas stuff.

Possibly, but what is wrong with the Dallas stuff? Dallas has a lot going for it.

[Alewife]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Possibly, but what is wrong with the Dallas stuff? Dallas has a lot going for it.

Maybe they'll choose Fort Worth. They still get the airport hub with no state income tax.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by Alewife

But with Charlotte you get the Fort Worth without having to deal with the Dallas stuff.

What "stuff"?