GM, Ford, Chrysler

[Oleg Bach]

If a person is jobless and does not have the credetials to enter the lucrative and lazy corporate world - Buying a truck is the smartest thing you can do. If you have a truck you can generate income - always - truck sales will always be stable - they are actually used for something that creates real wealth - unlike the car clogs up the free way in the morning so a techy can get to the office and push buttons accomplishing nothing and only creating artifical wealth - that falls apart as we now see the markets lift and fall and continue to tumble into oblivion where they belong.

[Vancouver King]

So you don't think that people will still buy trucks? You don't think that their necessary?

Of course light trucks are necessary. What is not necessary is 300HP under the hood to haul anything - including the owners butt to the office every morning.

[Smallc]

Of course light trucks are necessary. What is not necessary is 300HP under the hood to haul anything - including the owners butt to the office every morning.

Thats not necessarily true. In the case of the Ram, you may be correct, as its all about performance, but in the case of a truck that can tow over 1000 lbs and weighs upwards of 5000 lbs, it may be necessary. These trucks also have to be able to keep up with cars during merging and passing highway exercises because cars have (stupidly) become more and more powerful. The increase is somewhat necessary because of increased weights, but what family sedan really needs to go 0 - 60 in six seconds?

[kimmy]

As a general comment, I have observed that a lot of urbanite Canadians don't seem to recognize that their experience is not that of the whole country.

That many Canadians live in regions where public transit is not a viable option seems lost on some people. That affordable transportation has a direct and indirect impact on the livelyhood and prosperity of many Canadians is lost on some people. That some people need to be able to transport goods and equipment that simply won't fit in a SmartCar or a Prius is lost on some people.

Sure, lots of people drive vehicles that use far more fuel than they actually require. The most common vehicle of choice of the offenders isn't light pickups, but rather SUVs.

-k

[Kitch]

Don't forget about an overpowerful union that has crippled the ablity of these companies to compete as they decide which vehilces will be produced in which plant, and also force their opinions on what types of vehilces will be produced.

What do unions have to do with sales? Do you really think that unions have that much power to dictate what vehicles are produced? Do you have any evidence to support that?

It wouldn't be unheard of for a GM car to die after 150K yet Hondas and Toyotas can EASILY go strong for over 300K. But yes, GM is probably not able to compete because of unions. (Don't people that work at Honda or Toyota plants belong to the same union?)

Edited November 8, 2008 by Kitch

[Oleg Bach]

What do unions have to do with sales? Do you really think that unions have that much power to dictate what vehicles are produced? Do you have any evidence to support that?

It wouldn't be unheard of for a GM car to die after 150K yet Hondas and Toyotas can EASILY go strong for over 300K. But yes, GM is probably not able to compete because of unions. (Don't people that work at Honda or Toyota plants belong to the same union?)

Got them on that one didn't yah. Sales have to do with who has the money to buy - and consumers choice - and quality. At this point quality is of little consequence. Soon no one in America will have the banks approval on loans and you will likely go back to buying old America style beaters that can be home repaired and maintained. As the economy drops folks will go back to the old way - maybe America will drop it's boycott on Cuba - so Cuba can start exporting their vintage vehicles - I can't wait.

[AngusThermopyle]

Don't people that work at Honda or Toyota plants belong to the same union?)

Actually no, at least not at Honda. I used to work there in the Alliston plant. I don't know about Toyota but I suspect that they are non unionized either. The Japanese are'nt all that fond of unions.

[Sir Bandelot]

The Japanese are'nt all that fond of unions.

Fascists never are.

[Kitch]

Actually no, at least not at Honda. I used to work there in the Alliston plant. I don't know about Toyota but I suspect that they are non unionized either. The Japanese are'nt all that fond of unions.

My bad... thanks!

[Kitch]

Got them on that one didn't yah.

At first glance I thought this was sarcasm... I don't think it is... but I really don't know!

[Oleg Bach]

No it was not sarcastic. It made sense - Japan's auto product is created by union hands. I don't usually emerse myself in the whole thread - think of me as the kind visiting troll at times. Logic - if it does not add up then it's not real - one half of one apple joined to the other half make one apple - thats' law..and logic - and realty. A lot of Japan's product is produced here - and name one Canadian teacher or auto-worker that is not in a union..Those who hate unions are just plain cheap - Look at the life long battle that Conrad Black had with unionization. He believed that the unions destroyed his father - so he spent his whole life attacking them - where did it get him - Being a share holder in a company is also a form of white collar unionization - and you do not steal from the share holders or the union.

[Smallc]

What do unions have to do with sales? Do you really think that unions have that much power to dictate what vehicles are produced? Do you have any evidence to support that?

It wouldn't be unheard of for a GM car to die after 150K yet Hondas and Toyotas can EASILY go strong for over 300K. But yes, GM is probably not able to compete because of unions. (Don't people that work at Honda or Toyota plants belong to the same union?)

First point, yes the unions have a lot of pull and agreements have to be made. Those agreements dictate which cars go where and other details.

Second, check the quality numbers. GM has improved and Ford has improved markedly. Ford has improved so much that they are now tied with Toyota and just behind Honda. Consumer Reports and JD Power prove that. What was a few years ago is no longer true. Ford and GM were just turning things around when the bottom fell out. What is happening now is not the fault of either company.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Smallc

[craiger]

No it was not sarcastic. It made sense - Japan's auto product is created by union hands. I don't usually emerse myself in the whole thread - think of me as the kind visiting troll at times. Logic - if it does not add up then it's not real - one half of one apple joined to the other half make one apple - thats' law..and logic - and realty. A lot of Japan's product is produced here - and name one Canadian teacher or auto-worker that is not in a union..Those who hate unions are just plain cheap - Look at the life long battle that Conrad Black had with unionization. He believed that the unions destroyed his father - so he spent his whole life attacking them - where did it get him - Being a share holder in a company is also a form of white collar unionization - and you do not steal from the share holders or the union.

I don't think unions serve any sort of purpose at all in this day and age. And thats coming from a long standing brother.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't think unions serve any sort of purpose at all in this day and age. And thats coming from a long standing brother.

You are probably right - The cleaning staff at the hospital is union - and they have lost pride in their work - thousand are killed by bacteria yearly...You either water the garden and keep it green because you love it - or take your chances on a bad highly paid keeper - who might just kill it. People have to start caring about people again...not just themselves and a fat pay cheque. Be happy if your family is alive and well and still loving each other - that you have food - and shelter - and health - that is wealth - I have a relative who's son just parished...all of his material gain is now tainted with gloom - sad part about it - I don't believe he learned a thing.

[Kitch]

First point, yes the unions have a lot of pull and agreements have to be made. Those agreements dictate which cars go where and other details.

Second, check the quality numbers. GM has improved and Ford has improved markedly. Ford has improved so much that they are now tied with Toyota and just behind Honda. Consumer Reports and JD Power prove that. What was a few years ago is no longer true. Ford and GM were just turning things around when the bottom fell out. What is happening now is not the fault of either company.

So the reputation that they built over the years, based on the low quality of their product, has been improved based on improvements of their products in recent years? That quickly, based on 'expert' reports?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather wait to see if the 2005 GM cars can make it past 300K... a lot of them I mean. THEN I might personally change my mind about buying a GM (or Ford or Chrysler). Until then, they still make crappy cars in my mind. Would it not be fair to assume that others would require this sort of evidence before the reputation of these companies changed? (Because that's all reputation is... common opinion). I tend to think that reputation plays quite a large role in customer decisions.

So unions have the power to demand (I'd hesitate to agree with the use of the word 'dictate') what cars will be built where... but that doesn't mean that they have any voice when the design team is deciding what cars to produce. I could be wrong.

[Smallc]

So the reputation that they built over the years, based on the low quality of their product, has been improved based on improvements of their products in recent years? That quickly, based on 'expert' reports?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather wait to see if the 2005 GM cars can make it past 300K... a lot of them I mean. THEN I might personally change my mind about buying a GM (or Ford or Chrysler). Until then, they still make crappy cars in my mind. Would it not be fair to assume that others would require this sort of evidence before the reputation of these companies changed? (Because that's all reputation is... common opinion). I tend to think that reputation plays quite a large role in customer decisions.

So unions have the power to demand (I'd hesitate to agree with the use of the word 'dictate') what cars will be built where... but that doesn't mean that they have any voice when the design team is deciding what cars to produce. I could be wrong.

Point one. Ford's improvements have been well documented over the last number of years. Fords entire quality process has been changed to mirror and even exceed that of Toyota and Honda. This isn't just some type of blip. Quality is a process. Ford has gone through the process. The Edge and Fusion have such high quality that they even outdo similar cars from Toyota and Honda.

As a science teacher, you should be less suspect of agencies that use proven techniques to determine quality. Those same agencies have found that Toyota dropped the ball on both the new Camry and Tundra when it came to quality. Every company makes good cars and bad cars. The differences between the most reliable brands and least are so small in fact, that it might be between having one problem over 3 years, and 3 problems over the same period.

On the point of the unions and where cars are built. Where are car is built can dictate its profitability. How much workers are paid and what benefits they receive can also determine it. One of the biggest problems that the big 3 have, is that they were too generous with benefits and so they have massive pension and health care liabilities. Its not as simple as saying they make bad products (they don't anymore). Its a very complex problem with a complex solution. Ford and GM shouldn't and won't be allowed to fail.

[Kitch]

Point one. Ford's improvements have been well documented over the last number of years. Fords entire quality process has been changed to mirror and even exceed that of Toyota and Honda. This isn't just some type of blip. Quality is a process. Ford has gone through the process. The Edge and Fusion have such high quality that they even outdo similar cars from Toyota and Honda.

As a science teacher, you should be less suspect of agencies that use proven techniques to determine quality. Those same agencies have found that Toyota dropped the ball on both the new Camry and Tundra when it came to quality. Every company makes good cars and bad cars. The differences between the most reliable brands and least are so small in fact, that it might be between having one problem over 3 years, and 3 problems over the same period.

As a science teacher I'm a little tired of being told what I should and shouldn't be. Besides, as a science teacher I understand the limitations of the word "proven". Anyway...

You have misunderstood my point. My point isn't that the quality of the vehicles made by GM et. al. hasn't improved... I'll take your word on that. I'm saying that after a long period of producing crappy cars, it's hard for customers to change their minds... at least it is for me. And maybe I WILL change my mind when I start seeing 10-15 year old GMs on the road that are going strong after 300K. Perhaps the newer ones can... but reputations can't be changed as quickly as quality can. And if they can, the change doesn't occur simultaneously.

On the point of the unions and where cars are built. Where are car is built can dictate its profitability. How much workers are paid and what benefits they receive can also determine it. One of the biggest problems that the big 3 have, is that they were too generous with benefits and so they have massive pension and health care liabilities. Its not as simple as saying they make bad products (they don't anymore). Its a very complex problem with a complex solution. Ford and GM shouldn't and won't be allowed to fail.

I don't know that I'd want to allow my tax dollars to help a company that couldn't be successful on its own. But, then this makes me a hypocrite... maybe. I often advocate for helping PEOPLE that suffer from CHANCE occurrences, why wouldn't I support the same for COMPANIES? That being said, there are people that take the opposite stance that I do, on both counts. (Just rambling).

[craiger]

This comes from my union Benefits plan:

A MEMBER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PLAN IF HE/SHE:

-is on vacation or the annual christmas break.

- Refuses work under the jurisdiction of the local %#$

-is recieving benefits under:

- workers compensation plan

- canada pension plan

-old age security or

-any local %$# retirement or disability plan

-members with "recall date" or expectation of returning to and employer

- Leave of absence, Sickness/disability, compasion leave, parental/Maternity leave.

* I PERSONALLY THINK THESE UNIONS ARE SCUM! WE PAY OUR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR BENEFITS AND THEY PUT ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS ON US SO WE CANNOT COLLECT. LIKE CHRISMAS BREAK COME ON! SOMETHING HAPPENS AT A TIME A YEAR WE ARE TO SHOW COMPASION ADN IF YOU GET INJURED OR SOMETHING YOU GET NO BENEFITS, OR YOUR SICK OR CAN'T WORK YOUR REFUSED.

I looked into getting my own benefits and I found with Sunlife I can pay less and I will always be garanteed to be able to use them when needed.

[madmax]

Point one. Ford's improvements have been well documented over the last number of years. Fords entire quality process has been changed to mirror and even exceed that of Toyota and Honda. This isn't just some type of blip. Quality is a process. Ford has gone through the process. The Edge and Fusion have such high quality that they even outdo similar cars from Toyota and Honda.

As a science teacher, you should be less suspect of agencies that use proven techniques to determine quality. Those same agencies have found that Toyota dropped the ball on both the new Camry and Tundra when it came to quality. Every company makes good cars and bad cars. The differences between the most reliable brands and least are so small in fact, that it might be between having one problem over 3 years, and 3 problems over the same period.

On the point of the unions and where cars are built. Where are car is built can dictate its profitability. How much workers are paid and what benefits they receive can also determine it. One of the biggest problems that the big 3 have, is that they were too generous with benefits and so they have massive pension and health care liabilities. Its not as simple as saying they make bad products (they don't anymore). Its a very complex problem with a complex solution. Ford and GM shouldn't and won't be allowed to fail.

Whoa, I have been reading this thread with interest. Smallc, are you sure you are in Manitoba? Not bad on the knowledge. With regards to the "liabilities" they are/were more of a factor in the USA, where in GMs case they ditched their liabilities and if you have followed events on Ontario, even lowering the wages to $21, for Ford was ineffectual, because wages are not the problem, although it makes good politics.

You are right on the Tundra.

The subject is complex, and politics reduces things to the lowest common denominator and sometimes myth will determine what happens over facts.

The Major Market for North American Cars is the USA. Ontario Supplies the USA. Even today, Canadian Car sales were up. It is still very surprising. However, we do not serve as much of our domestic market as we used to because of more imports. Thus Toyota, Honda, and the other 3 are effected by offshore imports with no ties to the North American market. Regardless, none of this can change what is happening in the US. People are walking away from homes and cars, and I have relatives there walking away from everything and giving it back to the banks.

A huge problem in Ontario is that Provincially and Federally the Government has been hefting over Billions of monies to Ford & GM and there are no strings attached. These large taxpayer driven slush funds are used to move operations overseas or to Mexico. Now, why the heck should the tax payer bailout companies with no benefit to our economy? GM goes under or they move to CHina? Hmm, Why use tax payer monies to help relocate a private operation offshore? So, if GM goes under the jobs are gone. If GM gets CDN dollars, the Jobs are still gone. They aren't tied to keeping work here.

The Private Auto Companies and the Federal and Provincial government built this mess. This is the worst of both worlds.

When Chrysler got the bailout in the US back in the early 80s (Remember Reagan), they came out with little cars, and fuel milage that is equal to the smart car. These cars were dirt cheap, and sold like hotcakes. So not all bailouts are failures, companies fail themselves, like US Banks

Some people fail to remember a company called KIA.

Kia's bankruptcy in 1997

And people forget this a few short years before Hyundai purchased the bankrupt Kia

Initially well received, the Excel’s faults soon became apparent; cost-cutting measures caused reliability to suffer. With an increasingly poor reputation for quality, Hyundai sales plummeted, and many dealerships either earned their profits on repairs or abandoned the product. At one point, Hyundai became the butt of many jokes (i.e. Hyundai stands for "Hope you understand nothing's driveable and inexpensive")

And Hyundai is signifanctly California based today.

When we think of Subaru, GM, is a major shareholder and Toyota only 8%.

There is little of any company that isn't weaved into and with another. There used to be a Phrase.

What does GM make?

A) MONEY

Apparently not so true today. I find GM cars boring. Infact when I think of GM purchasing Chrysler, I think of the merger as Boring Cars that Breakdown instead of interesting Cars that work. I have a fondness for the designers at Chrysler.

A vehicle will be sold at the market value. If tier 1, 2, or 3 suppliers costs are lowered, you do not lower the price of the vehicle. It makes no sense to sell something for less then people are willing to pay for it.

Assembly is done with parts coming from all over the Globe. You get what you pay for, and what gets past all the ISO stuff. Most parts for all autocompanies have the same suppliers bidding and competing for contracts. This occurs all over the globe. Travel costs are very expensive and suppliers tend to want to be around the major assembly facilities. Just look at Auto Plants and the support industries that develop around them.

With regards to the North American Owned companies, the suppliers have been picking up stakes for sometime and have been issued directives since 2005 to relocate their facilities to Mexico or CHina.

If companies like GM, suggested years ago that their suppliers should move, (and many of those that can, already have), then it is apparent that GMs longterm goal has been to make major reductions in Canadian Assembly. THis is why Mexico now makes more vehicles then Canada.

Have Mexico give GM the bailout.

Obviously, if GM wants that Truck Plant two build the hybrid in Oshawa over Mexico, since we already funded them .5 billion for R&D, then that is different. But right now, I see corporations with their hand out, and no responsibility for their actions. I see government in a giving mood, with no accountability. I see the worker and taxpayer getting poor return on their investment.

Money, isn't going to change anything for GM and Ford, and we have to think about what is in this for Canada.

[madmax]

This comes from my union Benefits plan:

A MEMBER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PLAN IF HE/SHE:

-is on vacation or the annual christmas break.

- Refuses work under the jurisdiction of the local %#$

-is recieving benefits under:

- workers compensation plan

- canada pension plan

-old age security or

-any local %$# retirement or disability plan

-members with "recall date" or expectation of returning to and employer

- Leave of absence, Sickness/disability, compasion leave, parental/Maternity leave.

* I PERSONALLY THINK THESE UNIONS ARE SCUM! WE PAY OUR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR BENEFITS AND THEY PUT ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS ON US SO WE CANNOT COLLECT. LIKE CHRISMAS BREAK COME ON! SOMETHING HAPPENS AT A TIME A YEAR WE ARE TO SHOW COMPASION ADN IF YOU GET INJURED OR SOMETHING YOU GET NO BENEFITS, OR YOUR SICK OR CAN'T WORK YOUR REFUSED.

I looked into getting my own benefits and I found with Sunlife I can pay less and I will always be garanteed to be able to use them when needed.

I don't know what union you have? Most unions do not have benefits, but have companies that supply benefits, or the company provides benefits from a supplier because the union has bargained benefits into the contract. It normally in the companies and the benefit providers interest to put restrictions on benefits.

That said, I would also suspect their will be a clause that will have only one benefit provider liable until exhausted and the other kicks in.

Today, anyone in Ontario with benefits of anykind is doing well. From the 1000s of people I have helped get new work, all of them came from places with benefit plans, just over 4% have returned to fields where benefit are provided by the company. The 4% landed in Government and union jobs and a smaller number landed in good companies that remain progressive.

Regardless, the plans you speak of are not the kind that Autoworkers in Ontario have. They do have Cadillac (is a cadillac still good :)benefit plans.

Edited November 8, 2008 by madmax

[craiger]

These large taxpayer driven slush funds are used to move operations overseas or to Mexico. Now, why the heck should the tax payer bailout companies with no benefit to our economy? GM goes under or they move to CHina? Hmm, Why use tax payer monies to help relocate a private operation offshore? So, if GM goes under the jobs are gone. If GM gets CDN dollars, the Jobs are still gone. They aren't tied to keeping work here.

Unions also encourage this as they use member's money's called MERF funds

Edited November 8, 2008 by craiger

[Vancouver King]

Got them on that one didn't yah. Sales have to do with who has the money to buy - and consumers choice - and quality. At this point quality is of little consequence. Soon no one in America will have the banks approval on loans and you will likely go back to buying old America style beaters that can be home repaired and maintained. As the economy drops folks will go back to the old way - maybe America will drop it's boycott on Cuba - so Cuba can start exporting their vintage vehicles - I can't wait.

I have dibs on that '54 Merc convertible that appears in Castro's latest turista ad.

[Smallc]

too long to quote.

There are a couple things I am forced to disagree with. Firstly, I hate GM, but I don't want them to go under. If there's one thing that GM can't really be accused of, I would say its making boring cars. Take a look at the Pontiac G8, Chevrolet Malibu, the soon the be released Camaro, the Corvette, and the Cadillac CTS. There's also the Pontiac Slostice and Saturn Sky. There is a lot of excitement in their brands, but they have a reputation problem and they have a structure problem, one that hasn't been fixed. Chrysler also has some excitement with the LX cars and the Challenger.

GM also have some very fuel efficient cars. The Malibu I4 gets over 33 US MPG highway in real world tests. There is even a mild hybrid of it available.

Ford has had the Escape Hybrid for quite some time and it recently underwent improvements for both the 2008 and 2009 model years. It is the most fuel efficient SUV there is. Around February, the Fusion Hybrid will be launched. It will outdo the Camry Hybrid in the mileage department. Both Ford and GM make trucks that get 21 MPG highway.

There have been significant improvements. Even the auto journalists are starting to take notice. In Fords case, the improvements are going to continue. I'm not so sure about GM as they have froze product development because of their cash problems. I just hope its not too late, especially for Ford.

[madmax]

Unions also encourage this as they use member's money's through MERF funds to fund operations overseas

Interesting. I watched and participated with a Union in a Plant Takeover to prevent the "bankrupt" company from relocating. They contined to fight and locate a buyer who was interested in operating the company in Ontario. They were successful, and that company is operating without a nickle of taxpayer monies and is profitable because it never really was bankrupt. Morally bankrupt owner perhaps. The Provincial and Federal government were no help, and actually supported the companies decision to relocate.

You must do alright for yourselves. Autoworkers also make very good money. Soon they will not, when they are displaced.

[Smallc]

As a science teacher I'm a little tired of being told what I should and shouldn't be. Besides, as a science teacher I understand the limitations of the word "proven". Anyway...

You have misunderstood my point. My point isn't that the quality of the vehicles made by GM et. al. hasn't improved... I'll take your word on that. I'm saying that after a long period of producing crappy cars, it's hard for customers to change their minds... at least it is for me. And maybe I WILL change my mind when I start seeing 10-15 year old GMs on the road that are going strong after 300K. Perhaps the newer ones can... but reputations can't be changed as quickly as quality can. And if they can, the change doesn't occur simultaneously.

I don't know that I'd want to allow my tax dollars to help a company that couldn't be successful on its own. But, then this makes me a hypocrite... maybe. I often advocate for helping PEOPLE that suffer from CHANCE occurrences, why wouldn't I support the same for COMPANIES? That being said, there are people that take the opposite stance that I do, on both counts. (Just rambling).

I apologize for telling you hat you should and shouldn't be, but when all 4 surveys that I can think of (Consumer Reports, JD Power, TrueDelta, and the RDA Group, as well as internal numbers, there are more that I can't think of) agree on the quality improvements, especially in the case of Ford, I have no reason to doubt it.

Thing is, many people think like you on this issue. Thankfully, many don't. Ford and maybe GM can make comebacks, as long as they survive. I think that, it would have to great of a negative impact to let the companies fail.