Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8265 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Nov 10, 2008 11:16 am) |
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Nov 10, 2008 9:01 am) If only the Big 3 felt the same way towards the U.S. worker (!), I would agree with you. But the Big 3 have NOT cared about keeping industry here in the U.S. or the work here. They are the ones who outsourced many of their parts and assembly plants to Mexico and (lesser for savings) Canada. They didn't care about shuttering things here if they could save a buck and not get the UAW too upset. I also want you to consider that if we give them the $ in 2009, and they operate the same way they do today, do you not think they'll need more $ later?? They have been restructuring, and supposedly going to have the cars that turn things around; for the last 30 years. I see companies that are getting smaller and smaller and still have large pensions and health care to pay for, which means higher prices, less profit and back around to lower sales ... Shouldn't the U.S. public (or at least Congress) see a viable turnaround plan before shoveling $ at them?
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Nov 10, 2008 11:18 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 10, 2008 11:22 am) That makes too much sense. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 10, 2008 11:22 am) I don't want GM, Ford or Chrysler bailed out. And as you stated without a viable plan, which none have presented, it's throwing good money after bad. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Nov 10, 2008 11:47 am) That is what I thought. Sorry, cutting a few brands is not going to change the cost structure that much. What they have been doing has done so much more in cutting cost. Just a little too late.
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Nov 10, 2008 12:48 pm) Unfortunately staying the course is not an option. And you are probably right that it's a little too late. I just can't see handing over money to the current management and expecting them to turn it around. If they don't get the money from the government, then what do you do? Bankruptcy and a company like above or like others have been predicting. 62vette, don't get me wrong, i would love to see them survive but not operating like they are now. The big 3 has been mismanaged for so long and have been focusing on satisfying their investors rather than building the best products. They are trying to do this now but it's going to take about another 5-7 years to complete revamping their lineup. They don't have that type of time or money. This is why i keep suggesting they need to get leaner. I don't know enough inside information to suggest anything else. they have already cut labor costs, cut retiree pensions, cut staff, cut production, cut advertising, cut bonuses, cut 401(k) matching, asked folks to take more vacation, etc. Now it's time to bit the bullet an look at cutting some of your iconic brands. edited: 62vette: Are you a retired GM worker? If so, i would really like to read your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Nov 10, 2008 12:48 pm) - How many Lambda utes do you need? Was the Traverse necessary? - Did Saab really need to invest the time, the marketing, the engineering into the "Black" series (or whatever goofy lingo they want to call it) only to sell a total of 1500 copies? Does Saab need to exist at all? The brand is about as healthy as Isuzu was. Cutting them loose would save a lot of investment dollars IMO. - How about the engineering it took to add V8 option to the Colorado and Canyon pickups? Why? They were beyond pathetic when they came out and with the hint of 4+ dollar gas, a V8 is the last thing I would've thought they needed to generate sales. How about instead, using that cake to start from scratch? How about NOT letting them wither on the vine for a 10 year life cycle? What a waste. Even piddly little things like the little "GM" badges that go on every vehicle, those don't seem to have made much of an impact? |
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Nov 10, 2008 11:16 am) I think that the US and Canadian governments should sue Daimler for 1/3 the cost, as they are responsible for Chrysler being the shambles that it is.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 10, 2008 4:41 pm) Someone posted a market share chart. Chrysler is at about the same market share as they were 25 years ago.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
