"Incorrect, Dallas is full and cannot possibly accommodate national employees from 8 hubs."
The above can be true and false at the same time. I agree with the premise on the face. BUT MAYBE Dallas (and surrounding areas) have enough capacity to target their final employee number and the current situation is part of getting Dallas employees to quit. If this RTO was planned and not some early morning sitting on the toilet brain fa-t idea of a mad king, they had ample opportunity to get space or not get rid of the space they are getting rid of. From network capacity, to seating, to parking. All of it could have been addressed first if they wanted to have a successful experience. Something other than free Starbucks in the Lobby in Dallas. I almost choked when I saw that on LinkedIn as an example of a successful RTO.
If the network is going to be significantly smaller in 4 years (end of Carrier of Last Resort, serving only economically profitable customers, and replacing wireline with wireless (read regulatory filings about COLR) as Stink said on the TH yesterday), why can't every national employee be in Dallas by then? There would still be regions, as there are today, with their own smaller staff.
The state companies were recently re-incorporated with different names and McElfresh's name was on them (opencorporates.com). Why couldn't the company get smaller geographically and by employees (Carrier of Last Resort again)?
While I hold a low opinion of legacy SWBT, PBT, and AT&T management that are now executives or SVPs, I think they could have had a good RTO if they wanted. I also think they have good enough lawyers and consultants to have advised them, like their other large corporate clients, on how to get to where they want to go with variable expense with the least cost in the long run.
They are #3 for a reason. This whole thing is probably going exactly to plan.