Comments on: US ‘Big Three’ to secure US$15bn (A$22.4bn)

By: Jess

Jess — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:27:52 +0000

no surprises that ford owns volvo and gm owns saab. Everthing they touch needs a bailout!!

By: Bavarian Missile ( . ) ( . )

Bavarian Missile ( . ) ( . ) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:07:20 +0000

From what read on Autoblog Chrysler still may go under with a bailout! Not good! Oh and Volvo and Saab,looks like the Swedish government is going to bail them out too!

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:50:25 +0000

Technofreak,
Almost every European manufacturer has gone to their respective Govts asking for handouts, this is not confined to three (two?) US based manufacturers.

And people do realise that this has more to do with people not being able to get finance to buy a car, rather than not wanting to buy the cars?

This is US$15 bill, total. At least 3 US banking recieved US$25 bill EACH in govt assisstance.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:56:25 +0000

Adam says “everbody forgets that US vehicles DO match the Jap vehicles for quality, thats reality now.”

GM CEO Rick Wagoner says “we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster”

Who knows more about US vehicle quality … Adam or Mr GM CEO?

Adam says “If the so called ‘global credit crisis’ didn’t exist, thier respective restructuring plans would be on track to deliver.”

US Congress says “But many US legislators remain unconvinced, arguing the companies’ outmoded business models would have doomed them regardless of the current economic crisis.”

Wagoner agains says “We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market. We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs.”

Who knows more about why these US giants are going down … Adam or US Congress and GM CEO?

Adam, do you work for a US car manufacturer? lol!

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:28:04 +0000

Techno,
you cant blame the manufacturers for supplying what the public wants

By: technofreak

technofreak — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:29:13 +0000

If only Australia followed the EU 2L category instead of the US V8 category…and what if the US also followed the leaders – the EU.
They certainly wouldnt be putting their hand out now. But that was the choice made and now they have to live with it, too bad. Arrogance is such a futile pursuit.

BTW, what one the WTCC this year?? or even the BTCC?…..probably one of the options on your list for the next car you buy….

I agree with The Salesman. Its a shame that people have to suffer, but, thats the way the cookie crumbles

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:53:50 +0000

So you don’t think Ford is on the right restructuring track?

As i said, what about those legacy costs or trade agreements??

It’s not black and white…

By: The Salesman

The Salesman — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:48:52 +0000

Adam,
It would be an economic disaster, no doubt. But as i said before sometimes you need to go backwards in order to move forward. Think of it as a forest fire, the destruction looks terrible, the left over burnt bits enrich the soil and new growth begins and it is more resilient and intelligent than that it replaces. A type of evolution if you will. The current manufactures have been on fire to long and a douse of government funding my put out the flames for a short time but i can assure you the fire still burns deep. Eventually the direction will change, i would prefer to see it done with a company that embraces and enforces these changes. If the big three continue on the current path then the fire will rage on.

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:18:50 +0000

How about those legacy costs…

Trade agreements?

Personal attacks?

I haven’t seen any typed that would be constructive, you say don’t bail them out.
Please put forth your ideas on the results if they don’t LOAN them money.

By: The Salesman

The Salesman — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:28:43 +0000

Adam,
Ford, GM and Chrysler have had several grants. Bill Clinton drew up an agreement with the big three to have emissions and fuel consumption reduced, which none of them meet,(as far as actually mass producing a car) they just kept on making big cars and trucks because that is what was selling and making the profit (part of the reason they are struggling today). When Toyota and Honda realized the big three might advance in green energy before them, both invested heavily in hybrid technology and moved into the market before the big three did, thus becoming the market leaders.
This is one example of assistance received by way of government grants or incentives. If you like you could Google lots more.
I am against the grant because the big three make the wrong decisions and when they fail threaten to discard jobs or close down. If they can not self sustain or re structure to suit the market then they should not be in business

I sell Kia, but in my time i have been involved with Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Ford, Daewoo, Proton, Ssangyong, TATA. My roles have included Sales, Sales Manager and General Manager. I am also a licensed dealer.

These blogs are monitored, a personal attack on some one you don’t agree with is not an opinion on the article and should be struck from the thread. I am interested in the cars and other peoples views on current events or products.