Between calls from regulators and some Boeing shareholders for a reorganization, the company’s management refuses to consider a Seattle move.
Three days after the 737 MAX-9 blowout last January, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun flew back to Seattle. He called an all-hands meeting at the Renton factory where the 737 is built, addressing everyone working at the site. The company later released a video of the meeting to news media.
It was clear that the meeting’s goal was to show Boeing’s immediate response to the accident. But some commentators pointed out that there was a rather awkward side to this very public move:
Isn’t it a bit strange that the CEO of a company needs to travel across the country, to “rally the troops” who actually make its biggest seller, its primary source of revenue?
Reading Signals (and sending them?)
On Monday, Dominic Gates reported on the failure of a plan to call for a vote, calling for the permanent return of Boeing management to Seattle. The company’s headquarters were there until 2001 when they moved to Chicago.
Then in 2022, 21 years after leaving Seattle, Boeing announced another move of its HQ, this time to Arlington, Virginia. Until then, this site was the headquarters of Boeing Defense and Space. Other company divisions, like Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Capital, remain in Renton, in Washington State.
A shareholder proposed that Boeing move its world headquarters back to Seattle, close to its Puget Sound production sites (Renton and Everett) and many other installations. Since the first 737 MAX crisis, the company has been divesting many assets in the region.
The shareholder argued that a move back to Seattle would re-connect Boeing management with its people. He added that this “…would send a meaningful signal Boeing credibly intends to resume its position at the top of the commercial airplane business, restore its reputation for safety and excellence, and is committed to fixing its problems.”
Boeing Back to Seattle: A Timely Proposal?
In response, Boeing’s management argued that shareholders are not in a position to make an informed judgment on such strategic decisions. Thus, the suggestion to move back to Seattle will not be put to a vote.
Just hours after this story broke, an expert panel that was reviewing Boeing’s safety management presented its report to the U.S. Congress. The FAA had appointed this panel nearly a year ago, i.e. NOT as a result of the MAX-9 blowout.
One of the panel’s key findings was that there is a “disconnect” between Boeing’s management and its employees. And that this disconnect impacts the company’s safety culture, among its other negative effects.
Regulators and legislators continue to apply pressure on Boeing. Many agree that the company needs to send a convincing message that it is prepared to make changes, to move on from its latest crisis.
Many have called for a Seattle move, since before Boeing moved to Arlington, across the road from the Pentagon. The question is, could Boeing revisit its decision to NOT move back to its traditional manufacturing “home”? And are lawmakers or industry stakeholders likely to push for such a reversal now?
