Boeing's announcement of a second 787 production line in South Carolina, an economic development plum the state of Washington had expected as its birthright, prompted reactions of disappointment, anger, resignation, frustration and bewilderment.
Then there was this response to a piece written by your columnist for The News-Tribune in Tacoma:
"I don't give a crap if Boeing leaves Washington. I wish they would leave. They, like most big corporations, are ingrates. ... So bye-bye, Boeing. Get the hell out. Take half of the population of this state with ya."
That correspondent is not the first in stating the view that losing Boeing would be a blessing rather than a calamity. Ever since Boeing first voiced its unhappiness with conditions here, there's been a contingent, cutting across political and ideological lines and even including some in business, that has been saying, "So go, already."
To which the obvious response is, "And replace it with what?"
Many in the "Bye-bye, Boeing" camp would answer, "Replace it with nothing," arguing that the state could use some thinning of the population of newcomers and "furiners."
Let's presume that large-scale depopulation of Washington state is not a realistic option, and that the people who stay here might like gainful employment. Where will they find jobs?
We'll ignore those who propose as a solution "We'll innovate!" as though that possibility never occurred to anyone else, or that all that's necessary for innovation to occur is to suggest it. We'll also ignore any economic development plan that includes such vague and vapid buzzwords as "green economy" or "clean tech." And we'll presume that the rest of the state would prefer not to chase Seattle's model of becoming a huge open-air theme park for retired and young urbanists.
But there are some opportunities in certain niches that merit consideration:
Aerospace: Can you have an aerospace sector without the company upon which that sector was based? Some analysts say it's not only possible, but it's also the way economic planners ought to start thinking. Local subcontractors, fabricators, custom manufacturers and service vendors are already supplying Boeing competitor Airbus, as well as dozens of other aerospace companies. They'd like a piece of emerging commercial aviation industries in Canada, Brazil, Russia, China and Japan. (The hazard is those countries want their aerospace programs to generate jobs for themselves, not in Washington.) And these analysts further contend the aerospace industry is such a global enterprise, it can operate no matter where the suppliers or the customers are located.
Medical instruments: Biotech proved to be something of a wet sputtering firecracker, but Washington already has a well-developed medical-technology segment with potential for even greater growth-devices, tools and instruments, from ultrasound to defibrillators to products that clear plaque from leg arteries. The trick is both nurturing those companies from idea to development stage to operations, and keeping them here once they get to a size to be sold.
Forest products: Timber used to be as big a presence in the state's rural regions as Boeing was in the Puget Sound area. The industry has consolidated and restructured, but there are companies that have learned to do innovative things with lumber and paper. Hoquiam-based Paneltech International, for example, presses sheets of recycled paper soaked with non-petroleum-based resin to produce a material called Paperstone, which can be used for countertops, tables and furniture.
Agriculture: Washington has long been a player in Big Ag with crops like wheat and apples, much of which gets shipped elsewhere. The wine folks have also proven you can take a boutique product and make a serious, sizable industry from it.
Washington is not doomed economically if the second 787 line indeed signals Boeing's long-term march into the sunset. The state does have options and prospects.
But if Boeing decides to stick around, that might be nice too, even if not everyone is pleased by that choice.