Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#511
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
>rantonrave@mail.com wrote:
>>I've seen a case study showing that if GM had Toyota's
>>production efficiency - without any changes in its labor cost
>>structure, GM would have been profitable every year. That's
>>not to say that labor, health care, and pension costs are huge
>>burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would still be
>>losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
>>more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
>Can you point us to that case study?
I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.
#512
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
>rantonrave@mail.com wrote:
>>I've seen a case study showing that if GM had Toyota's
>>production efficiency - without any changes in its labor cost
>>structure, GM would have been profitable every year. That's
>>not to say that labor, health care, and pension costs are huge
>>burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would still be
>>losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
>>more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
>Can you point us to that case study?
I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.
#513
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
>rantonrave@mail.com wrote:
>>I've seen a case study showing that if GM had Toyota's
>>production efficiency - without any changes in its labor cost
>>structure, GM would have been profitable every year. That's
>>not to say that labor, health care, and pension costs are huge
>>burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would still be
>>losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
>>more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
>Can you point us to that case study?
I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.
#514
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > dbu. wrote:
> >>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> >>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> >>first.
> >
> > How will that improve GM management?
>
> It won't.
> > Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> > contracts?
>
> Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
> have higher build quality.
It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
#515
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > dbu. wrote:
> >>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> >>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> >>first.
> >
> > How will that improve GM management?
>
> It won't.
> > Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> > contracts?
>
> Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
> have higher build quality.
It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
#516
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > dbu. wrote:
> >>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> >>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> >>first.
> >
> > How will that improve GM management?
>
> It won't.
> > Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> > contracts?
>
> Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
> have higher build quality.
It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
#517
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
#518
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
#519
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.
The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication
Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?
mike hunt
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
> we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
> year:
> "Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
> by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
> 65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
> Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
> contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
> in Indiana with 90% local components."
>
#520
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
#521
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
#522
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>>first.
>>>
>>>How will that improve GM management?
>>
>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.
Matt
#523
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>first.
>>How will that improve GM management?
>
>>It won't.
>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>contracts?
>
>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>have higher build quality.
>
>
> > It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> > already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> > eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
> >
> > And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> > over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>
> You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
> about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
> rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
> their jobs well.
The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.
So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.
#524
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>first.
>>How will that improve GM management?
>
>>It won't.
>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>contracts?
>
>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>have higher build quality.
>
>
> > It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> > already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> > eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
> >
> > And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> > over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>
> You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
> about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
> rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
> their jobs well.
The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.
So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.
#525
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Matt Whiting wrote:
> do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> dbu. wrote:
>>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>>first.
>>How will that improve GM management?
>
>>It won't.
>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>contracts?
>
>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>have higher build quality.
>
>
> > It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> > already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> > eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
> >
> > And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> > over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>
> You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
> about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
> rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
> their jobs well.
The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.
So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.