01bird58

iTrader: (9)

[QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]that was negotiated. how is that the unions fault they agreed to this?[QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]


Im not saying its the unions falut for agreeing to it, hey that was a smart move on their part (and a dumb mngmt move) so I am kind of agreeing with you there. Im just pointing out that the unions contract is a problem, would you not agree? I mean how clear can this get, workers are being paid for not working, this is bad.

How can you possible think this? If the contract was restructured so that workers who are actually working get paid, then this would free up a scary amount of money within the companies. This cash can then be pumped into product lines improving designs, defects, warranties, initial vehicle MSRP's and just about everthing else possible.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

[QUOTE=01bird58][QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]that was negotiated. how is that the unions fault they agreed to this?
the UAW has made many concessions. they dont just get something and not give back they've agreed to plant closings and buyouts and paying for some of their benefits. fact is membership has been declining.


the fact that ford and the other domestic carmakers didnt invest their profits wisely has nothing to do with the current contract. for yrs. they made tons of money and didnt look towards the future and now its costing them.

its not the unions fault cars like the explorer had bad ties and tipped over,its not their fault fords trucks caught on fire and its not their fault focuses were recalled the most in automotive history.


perhaps if mngt. cared about the co. instead of huge bonuses and flying planes at the co. expense maybe they'd be in better shape. how bout all the money paid out to CEOs that ran the co. into the ground then left with huge payouts.

unions are far less to blame for the big threes downfall than mngt. FAR LESS.

On 3 Motorsports

Wow, excellent post my friend!

This is exactly why I have both a Ford and GM product in the garage.

01bird58

iTrader: (9)

UltimateorangeSS, agreed, it is more managements fault than anyone for leading the company into a downward spiral in the first place. Both sides are in the worng, and have got to negotiate before a bankruptcy or merger forces them to.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

heres an interesting article. these job banks that laid off employees are in are becoming less of a factor with buyouts.



http://kiplingerforecasts.com/home/s...y_to_deal.html

dailydriver

You mean like we FAILED to do with Japan, enabling them to so thoroughly and brutally RAPE our economy??! The sad part is, if we fail to control China in the same manner, they have the potential to finish us off without a hope in the world to save us.

01bird58

iTrader: (9)

Wow, a lot of good info. there, just what we are talking about. Good thing for my uncle he'll be retiring in a year or two. The future looks to be tough for everyone.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Sounds like GM is doing better, at least in the short term.

I disagree with all the doomsday bandwagoning around this site. GM will be just fine. They will never have market share like they did in the 50s and 60s, but they won't be going under either, unless things get A HELL of a lot worse first. Unless rankings have recently changed, last I read GM is still the 3rd largest corporation in the world in terms of total sales dollars, behind ExxonMobil and Walmart. They still have a lot of money coming in but obviously too much going out. Once they sort things out with the UAW they will be in decent shape with plenty of promise for the future. Their pipeline looks good and people are coming back into their showrooms. Warranties are improving significantly. Inital quality rankings for the brand are way up, close to equaling their asian rivals (or possibily already are?).

GM will survive.

I hope Ford makes a turnaround as well. I have nothing aganist Ford, and I hope they can provide a solid future for themselves and their customers.

Rawr256

Sorta off topic... but why do they call them the Big Three in the US all the time? Last time I checked Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge was all owned by Mercedes.

Only since I have gotten into cars, have I become a bit more comfortable liking Ford. Part of it has to do with the whole performance aspect behind the cars. The Mustang and F-Body you could almost call brothers, bother have huge markets behind them that back them up. You get the people that hate a Mustang because it is a Mustang, but I am sure if a sweet deal came along, they would be tempted to buy! Next car I am actually looking into will probably be a Terminator Cobra.

I think Ford will be fine, along with GM. They have more than people give them credit for, especially in quality. I drive my 98 GTP and short of a tranny going out on me out of no where (thank you 3.4 pully! ) I have had no problems with it other than my front tires mysteriously getting eaten away! My Trans Am has no squeeks or rattles in it that I can hear and more than once I can catch people eyeballing it and trying not to make it look obvious, generally people in their Jap cars.

My family has owned GM since the late 60's, generally speaking it is all that they would buy. My dad has a 90 Transport he bought with 2k miles on it, only problem we had was the engine seized, after my brother ran it dry on oil, at 280kish miles. No other thing on the car ever touched. My dad bought a Grand Am with the Quad 4 that the magazines dubbed "very unreliable" if very unreliable is my winter car 17 years later with original tranny, never touched, and engine that lasted to 245k miles, was rebuilt, and the car is now at 268k miles and gets 30+, guess I will take "very unreliable".

Part of the problem I agree, is management, another problem, is the unions, a possibly even bigger problem, is the Auto Mags. People take what they say as the holy grail. They will tell you about your Toyota Prius getting 60 mpg and all the neat little things it will do, but they wont tell you that it really doesn't get the 60 mpg, it will get stuck in more than 6" of snow, and when you use cruise control it constantly surges... how do I know? A Toyota dealership convinced my Grandma to buy one for $47k. They had her buy all these warranties and crap and gave her it fully loaded. She took it into the dealership complaining about the surging and they told her, "they do that, its normal, it helps you get the better mileage." Which my Ford Probe rivals, 35mpg to her 42mpg she gets. When I went into the dealership for one of the service deals, one of them tried to talk me into buying a Echo, they told me, "It will last to 300k+ miles no problem..." When I asked him to show me one, he was dumbfounded.

Ford will survive... They aren't even close to what Dodge was 20 years back, before Ford goes completely under I bet the gov would kick in and help them out... lot of money for the US economy to loose...

2001somws.6

iTrader: (1)

WOW well said. I hope ford comes through. I think gm, ford and dcx should always be on top.

badjuju342

iTrader: (3)

I have heard this said before but nobody seems to mention the flip side of the coin. Yes , GM workers do get 80% of pay and benefits when laid off BUT there is a catch: it comes out of their retirement pension. So , in essence , they're not getting "free" money from GM , they're eroding their retirement. Not so good when you think about it...

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

The UAW is a big part of GM's problem. Sure you can argue that they have to build a good car...blah blah blah. Fact is they have five of the worlds best selling vehicles. GM has no problem selling cars on par with any other automaker out there at this time.

FACT: GM loses around $800 on every car they sell.

That being the case, can anybody explain to me how sales numbers have ANYTHING to do with their problems? If you're losing money on every item you sell, you could sell 200 quadjillion and you'd only be farther in the hole.

Bottom line is - GM must cut overhead to succeed. They have already proven this to be true. Their new labor contracts and trimmed down workforce, plus the insane buyouts they've been offering, have reduced their losses by more than half in only a year.

Complain all you want about the cars, they have nothing to do with the problem.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

how can you say their cars have nothing to do with the problem? they lose money because sales have been declining in NA for yrs. and they have to discount them to move them. up until recently domestic automakers have had a reputation for making subpar vehicles and that has caused people to buy imports and in order to try and get sales back theyve been offering incentives to do that. thats why theyve been losing money. numbers dont mean **** if you cant sell them at a profit.


the reason they have to cut back is because theyve been losing marketshare at a rapid rate to imports. recalls,warranty claims,using cheaper parts that break or fail is why the big three are losing ground.


fact is they failed to reinvest when they were making money and now its come back to hurt them. the big three have been so poorly managed for such a long time and now theyre playing catchup.


the UAW has nothing to do with poorly designed and undesirable cars. they have nothing to do with vehicles catching on fire and tipping over. they have nothing to do with paint defects. all those things effect profits because it makes people spend their money elsewhere causing CARS to sit in showrooms and forcing dealers to discount them at little to no profit to move them.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

All these points are meaningless when you aren't making money on the cars you sell. Quality doens't even come into the picture here, it's not part of the equation:

Sell one car at an $800 loss: -800 X 1 = -800
Sell 1 million cars for same: -800 X 1,000,000 = -800,000,000

In both scenarios you lost money. Period.

Isn't that what I just said?

Yes, and?

You can blame long term management for the problem, because they did nothing to shore up the labor contract issues for years, so yes this is true.

Right, and niether does GM's problems.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

you dont get it. they've been losing money on cars because theyve had a bad reputation for having poor quality therefore causing lower sales and forcing them to use incentives to move them. 5k off and 0% doesnt makeyou money. get it now?

no, you can blame management for designing poor vehicles that people didnt want. it had nothing to do with unions. they made money for decades and refused to prepare for the future.

GMs problems have nothing to do with designing cars people dont want? is that what your last line means?


http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/17/news...woes/index.htm

heres some more info. its simple. GM needs to sell more cars and sell them at a profit and not give them away. and once again. if they choose to give car away at a loss thats not the UAWs fault.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I don't get it? You need to provide proof of that.

Here it is, broken down...

FACT: The UAW is responsible for GM's massive health care obligation.
FACT: Due to GM's massive health care obligation, they lose money on every vehicle they sell.
FACT: If you lose money on each sale, it doesn't matter how many you sell, you will lose money.

There it is. It doesn't get any simpler. If you want to argue this, pick out the FACT you dispute, and we'll go from there.

Once GM can start making money on the cars it sells, we can then argue over weather or not they are up to par on quality and desirability standards.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

so its the UAWs fault health care costs are out of control? how so?

i'll say it again since you obviously didnt read the link. GM has been losing marketshare for decades. still with me?

because sales decline profits do along with it. understand?


BECAUSE of lagging sales theyve been forced to sell cars at a lower profit or no profit or at a loss. it has NOTHING to with the UAW why they cant sell cars. NOTHING!


so please explain to me why GM made record profits when they were paying for UAW employee benefits and now theyre not. very easy answer.

sales dropped due to GMs vehicles not being on par with imports. how can you think otherwise? if you say that isnt why then explain the drop in marketshare for me.

benefits were agreed upon at the time of contract negotiations. the UAW agreed to buyouts and plant closings to keep their benefits so dont think it came for nothing.

im not saying health care costs arent a problem but GMs problems stem from poor mngt decisions. PERIOD.
link here saying poor sales contributing to loss in profits. imagine that.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05076/472451.stm

link here showing totoya having better initial quality and how it hurt GM sales.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/30/pf/a...ings/index.htm
things are now changing but i think i proved my point.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

here i go again providing proof health costs arent the only reason GM loses money on each vehicle sold.





http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/10/...every-vehicle/

iroc85blu

iTrader: (2)

what do u mean imports compare better than american. Ever had a dsm with the timing chain issue that when the chain breaks the engine is toast. Or a rx-7 that the apex seals tend to only last 100,000 miles then the engine is done. Or a vr-4 that cant hold a tranny together. what im trying to point out that almost every car manufactuar builds some reliable cars and some not so reliable cars. Also would u rather buy a 47k dollar prius that gets 42 mpg or a neon, cobalt or focus for 1/4 the price that gets in the mid 30 mpg range. What country do u live in? Then support it!

misfits

iTrader: (1)

why dont north american automakers market in asia like india,china (2billion ppl). even if they only get like ~5% market share, they'll be makin up for the slow downs in north america.