Keeping Boeing in Washington

BOEING can pack up and move. If one sobering thought is taken from the new study on Washington's competitiveness as an aerospace state, that is it.

Boeing already moved its executives. Moving an assembly line would cost a lot more — and mean more. It is not something that should be made too attractive.

The study, which is funded by tax money and done by Deloitte Consulting for the Economic Development Council of Snohomish County, tells specifically what everyone knows generally: that Washington is a higher-cost state than its chief rivals: Kansas, Texas or the Carolinas.

Part of it is that workers earn more here — a dollar for every 90 cents earned by a machinist in Kansas, 88 cents in South Carolina, 83 cents in Texas and 82 cents in North Carolina. This difference is a very good thing so long as Boeing stays here and continues to be successful here.

Part of Washington's high cost is in the frequency of strikes: four in the Aerospace Machinists' past seven negotiations, for a total of 202 days of lost work.

The study suggests diplomatically that the fault may be Boeing's as well as the union's. It suggests that creating a state aerospace council might help with this, and in retaining the industry generally.

Gov. Christine Gregoire said Friday she is setting up such a council — a move that will focus attention on keeping the aerospace industry here.

And that is what the Deloitte study does. It focuses attention. That we have higher unemployment pay than Texas or higher workers' compensation than South Carolina does not mean this state has to reduce our benefits to their level. It does require keeping an eye on these things, so that Washington's cost disadvantage doesn't get too high.

Aerospace is not an industry this state can afford to let go.