OP
JungleClone
Senior
- Jan 9, 2004
- 338
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
150,00 sq ft of new office space for 350 executives? How fitting. They'll be able to further isolate themselves from interacting with employees.
United To Relocate World HQ?
- Thread starter JungleClone
- Start date
I don't get it. There are so many other things we could spend $$ on. How about some front line help? How are the other job groups coping? We are dying on the front line and constantly hear the machines are our new saving grace. I would rather see an update at the current WHQ rather than a relocation. I do agree that the "isolation" for this mgmt is the goal.
Let me tell ya something that you probably already know, "I don't know ####" about the future here or elsewhere, and I haven't heard anything either. What I've written here is strictly my opinion, which everyone has. Who knows what they have up their sleeves, if anything! Purhaps instead of some Grand Plan, there are just many, many, contingencies plans to try to cover most situations or eventualities..
As always, wish everyone the best with whatever happens, which is probably nothing, however one would think with this rollercoaster ride of oil prices that eventually something would have to change, then again, maybe not..
ha ha ha..
Good-luck to those that want higher fares and better contracts.
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Jan 14, 2004
- 235
- 0
Sounds like someone is concerned about knowing insider information?
Let me tell ya something that you probably already know, "I don't know ####" about the future here or elsewhere, and I haven't heard anything either. What I've written here is strictly my opinion, which everyone has. Who knows what they have up their sleeves, if anything! Purhaps instead of some Grand Plan, there are just many, many, contingencies plans to try to cover most situations or eventualities..
As always, wish everyone the best with whatever happens, which is probably nothing, however one would think with this rollercoaster ride of oil prices that eventually something would have to change, then again, maybe not..
ha ha ha..
Good-luck to those that want higher fares and better contracts.
A startling reversal by you after all your posts claiming an inevitable merger and other things??
What has got you running scared and changing your tune??
JBG
OP
JungleClone
Senior
- Jan 9, 2004
- 338
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #24
United departure not assured, but airline is looking
By Mark Skertic
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 31, 2006
United Airlines will meet with officials in California next week to discuss the possibility of moving the airline's headquarters from Elk Grove Township to San Francisco.
The California city is on United's short list of potential new homes for its corporate offices. Also in the running is a move to the Loop or Denver, which, like San Francisco, is home to one of United's hubs.
"The governor is always interested in bringing more jobs to the state, and members of his office and the city will meet with United next week," said Darryl Ng, spokesman for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A United spokeswoman declined to give a timeline for when the carrier will make a decision on where its corporate home will be located.
"We are evaluating all of our options, and we continue to look at how we can best consolidate facilities across the system," said Jean Medina.
The carrier has hired real estate advisory firm Staubach Co. to evaluate possible locations. It is looking for about 150,000 square feet of office space.
A fourth option under consideration is to remain in Elk Grove Township, near O'Hare International Airport. The northwest suburban location has been United's home since the early 1960s. About 3,600 of United's 16,000 Chicago-area employees now work there.
Located on East Algonquin Road, it is home to United's flight operations center, where flights around the globe are scheduled and monitored.
Those operations would likely remain in Elk Grove Township. The sites United is scouting would house about 400 top management and support staff.
In Denver, United recently completed complex, multimillion-dollar negotiations with airport officials that free up some gates, consolidate United's operations in one concourse, pay off some of the carrier's debt and upgrade its regional jet facility.
The city and airport work well with United and would like to see the airline expand its presence in Denver, said John Huggins, the city's economic development director. But he declined to comment on the possibility of United locating its corporate offices there.
Friday was the deadline United set for proposals from downtown Chicago landlords interested in attracting the carrier as a tenant. It is likely United will spend at least a week reviewing those offers and its other possibilities, said Paul O'Connor, president of World Business Chicago.
"Then they'll probably get together with the city and state again and look at what they can do," said O'Connor, whose organization works to promote local business. "We're taking this very seriously."
United has not indicated what incentives it desires, but a high bar was set by aerospace giant Boeing Co. in 2001 when it moved to Chicago from Seattle.
Chicago trumped offers from Denver and Dallas with a package that included $14 million from the state over 20 years, $3 million in city grants and $19 million in property tax abatements.
The airline, which has not made an annual profit since 2000, left bankruptcy in February.
Although the possibility of United moving its headquarters became public earlier this month, it is clear the airline has been investigating the possibility for some time, O'Connor said.
He said it is unlikely the process will be drawn out.
"I think United wants to go as quickly as they can," O'Connor said. "Now that all of this is out in the public, I think they want to get it over with."
__________________________________________________________
Bad enough that the top tier execs at UA are looking to isolate themselves from WHQ. But to consider relocating out of Chicago as a whole is ridiculous, unless you're going to consolidate facilities and move the entire WHQ. And if they do that and move to SFO, I'd imagine you'd lose a lot of people who would not even think about relocating out there given the astronomical housing market.
But then again, this smells to me like classic corporate blackmail where they hold cities hostage about relocating in order to get tax incentives and other monetary niceties. UA certainly isn't unique in doing that.
By Mark Skertic
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 31, 2006
United Airlines will meet with officials in California next week to discuss the possibility of moving the airline's headquarters from Elk Grove Township to San Francisco.
The California city is on United's short list of potential new homes for its corporate offices. Also in the running is a move to the Loop or Denver, which, like San Francisco, is home to one of United's hubs.
"The governor is always interested in bringing more jobs to the state, and members of his office and the city will meet with United next week," said Darryl Ng, spokesman for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A United spokeswoman declined to give a timeline for when the carrier will make a decision on where its corporate home will be located.
"We are evaluating all of our options, and we continue to look at how we can best consolidate facilities across the system," said Jean Medina.
The carrier has hired real estate advisory firm Staubach Co. to evaluate possible locations. It is looking for about 150,000 square feet of office space.
A fourth option under consideration is to remain in Elk Grove Township, near O'Hare International Airport. The northwest suburban location has been United's home since the early 1960s. About 3,600 of United's 16,000 Chicago-area employees now work there.
Located on East Algonquin Road, it is home to United's flight operations center, where flights around the globe are scheduled and monitored.
Those operations would likely remain in Elk Grove Township. The sites United is scouting would house about 400 top management and support staff.
In Denver, United recently completed complex, multimillion-dollar negotiations with airport officials that free up some gates, consolidate United's operations in one concourse, pay off some of the carrier's debt and upgrade its regional jet facility.
The city and airport work well with United and would like to see the airline expand its presence in Denver, said John Huggins, the city's economic development director. But he declined to comment on the possibility of United locating its corporate offices there.
Friday was the deadline United set for proposals from downtown Chicago landlords interested in attracting the carrier as a tenant. It is likely United will spend at least a week reviewing those offers and its other possibilities, said Paul O'Connor, president of World Business Chicago.
"Then they'll probably get together with the city and state again and look at what they can do," said O'Connor, whose organization works to promote local business. "We're taking this very seriously."
United has not indicated what incentives it desires, but a high bar was set by aerospace giant Boeing Co. in 2001 when it moved to Chicago from Seattle.
Chicago trumped offers from Denver and Dallas with a package that included $14 million from the state over 20 years, $3 million in city grants and $19 million in property tax abatements.
The airline, which has not made an annual profit since 2000, left bankruptcy in February.
Although the possibility of United moving its headquarters became public earlier this month, it is clear the airline has been investigating the possibility for some time, O'Connor said.
He said it is unlikely the process will be drawn out.
"I think United wants to go as quickly as they can," O'Connor said. "Now that all of this is out in the public, I think they want to get it over with."
__________________________________________________________
Bad enough that the top tier execs at UA are looking to isolate themselves from WHQ. But to consider relocating out of Chicago as a whole is ridiculous, unless you're going to consolidate facilities and move the entire WHQ. And if they do that and move to SFO, I'd imagine you'd lose a lot of people who would not even think about relocating out there given the astronomical housing market.
But then again, this smells to me like classic corporate blackmail where they hold cities hostage about relocating in order to get tax incentives and other monetary niceties. UA certainly isn't unique in doing that.
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
Maybe they're searching for an ideal bunker, a'la world dictatorships that have failed, which they'll need--after they really start to make 'the changes'...
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
Im sure theres room in the 53 story tall Continental Airlines World Headquarters building here in Houston.......
OP
JungleClone
Senior
- Jan 9, 2004
- 338
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #28
The more I think about this, the more I shake my head. As usual, UA Senior Management has their eye on what really matters.
They should quit worrying about nice, new, spiffy digs for their top 350 pencil pushers and instead focus on transforming the embarassing culture that still exists at the company. Is REAL leadership ever going to walk in the doors of the WHQ Executive Suite????
They should quit worrying about nice, new, spiffy digs for their top 350 pencil pushers and instead focus on transforming the embarassing culture that still exists at the company. Is REAL leadership ever going to walk in the doors of the WHQ Executive Suite????
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Jan 14, 2004
- 235
- 0
