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.

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:57:34 +0000

Andrew m,

Yes Alan M make the right business decision when he was hired as Ford’s CEO 2 years ago, Ford went through thier pain back then.

GM and Crysler are now being thrust into thier pain due to the credit freeze.

Phill,

If you’re correct, why do they need US operations and sales and njot only rely on the rest of the globe for survival??
Proof please?

technofreak,

blah, blah, blah…
How was that helpful?

By: technofreak

technofreak — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:58:15 +0000

No pain, no gain. Jobs have nothing to do with it. These losers sailed everyone down the river. They have to go cause they ooze inefficiency.

By: Phill

Phill — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:25:09 +0000

This is a joke,These arn’t American companys anymore,there MULTINATIONAL\GLOBULE,they have no allegence to the american people,IF the US car industry does collapes they will just move offsore.They know this was coming,why do you think Ford built the largest R&D facility in the Southern Hemispere and Holden spent 1 billon on the VE developement in Oz and Holdens already testing deisel engines from Europe(BMW).DONT GIVE AWAY ANY MORE MONEY there is some realiy rich guys sittig somewere in the world laughing at how dumb we are.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:04:01 +0000

Adam,
i agree with your thoughts, an I too was sitting on the fence as to whether or not a GM and chrysler collapse weaken them, or make them stronger.

I think Ford took a dose of anti biotics just in time.
they started re-organising their assets, and changing their products around 12 months ago.
I hoinestly think they had just that ounce more foresight than the others to be able to dodge the bullet.

The reason toyota isnt as affected is because the US isnt their mothership. Toyotas sales in the US have slid further than fords. Fords sales have slid the least.

Not even the almighty toyota saw this coming. its seems like just yesterday that they were still heavily focused on trying the push new “trucks” into the US

you would have to had been bloody good to see this coming.
If a US CEO said stop making trucks 12 months ago when they were the top sellers, they would have thrown him in the looney bin

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:44:43 +0000

Why can’t you just look at the reality instead of trying to justify the maoning and groaning you constanly come out with that is quite honestly, annoying, unproductive and simply tiring…

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:42:24 +0000

The salesman,

please expand on your assumptions of them being ‘bailed out before in one way or another’??
I’d like some ‘facts’ for a change…

This is a LOAN, not a bailout.

AS i’ve already said…ALL manufacturers are in trouble and asking for GOVERMENT assistance.

What brand of vehicle do you sell again?

By: The Salesman

The Salesman — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:32:26 +0000

Adam and Bret,
We are critical because they have been bailed out before in one for or another. Sometimes you need to go backwards in order to be able to move forward. If you let them take a natural course eventually you will get a product that works.

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:31:47 +0000

U can call em loans or equity stakes or whatever but they are nothing more than a bailout.

By: Adam (aka Mada)

Adam (aka Mada) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:28:17 +0000

DLr1,

That’s right.

I mean i feel as if GM and Crysler should be left to fend for themselves also, but it’s not as simple as that.

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

I’m still debating if Ford would suffer short term rather than long term however, if GM and Crysler did die.

Ford would obviously gain much more volume do the no GM or Crysler but would suffer short term due to parts supplier shortages.

By: alloys

alloys — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:21:56 +0000

LET GM die …….they have had their time. Ford are in the best position…..if GM or Chrysler go down and suppliers go too they can just import the FG Falcon and at last they will have a fantastic car to buy !!! I know that wont happen but its a good thought !!