This oughtta work out just as well as the last time…

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ ... ea-chicago

There is a thread in Plane Talk. This should, hopefully, work out quite a bit better.

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I sent a letter to the CEO and to Investor Relations regarding why the D.C. Metro, in particular, Arlington would be better than Chicago and a single airline. I also talked about Atlanta and it's proximity to Delta and several great schools and large aircraft manufacturers and military bases. Plus, Atlanta's mayor and Savannah's mayor didn't destroy a perfectly good airport and many cities in GA, NC and SC were pro-aviation and supported military aviation operations. I also briefly touched on the NextGen tanker contracts. Neither IR nor the CEO ever responded.

Arlington is a much better choice than Chicago, IMO.

Didn’t Boeing originally relocate to Chicago to be closer to their customer (UAL)?

Deja vu.

Rather the opposite. Articles from that time say they did it to be farther from production in Seattle, to get a more even-handed view of their business lines in Seattle, St. Louis and Long Beach. Only as a footnote is it mentioned that then-CEO Phil Condit was a big fan of the Chicago Opera.

It also served as a shot across the bow at Seattle and Washington state politicians long used to taking Boeing for granted. Case in point: Boeing had for decades wanted to have a delivery center to hand over jets to customers with appropriate hoopla, but state law said doing so at the factory would make the transactions liable for sales tax. Lobbying for an exemption was ignored, even though the state wasn't getting any revenue from the tax anyway, Boeing just held their delivery ceremonies either at the customer's locale or next door in sales-tax-free Oregon. Then Boeing moved its HQ, and the exemption was fast-tracked in the next legislative session.