 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / November 2005GM leaving town
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans to eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as part of an effort to reduce its assembly capacity in North America. It expects the staff reduction to come mostly through attrition and early retirees. The figure represents an increase of 5,000 jobs from its previous plan to cut 25,000 positions in the three-year period. The company expects to reduce capacity by an additional 1 million units by the end of 2008, bringing its target down to 4.2 million units, a level that would represent a 30% decrease from 2002 levels. The Dow component expects to record a "significant" restructuring charge in relation to this effort. GM lifted its target for structural cost reductions to $6 billion by the end of 2006 from a previously indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net material cost savings. More info at: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/21/0auto-389019.htm Bob > NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans to > eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as part of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from a previously indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an > additional $1 billion in net material cost savings. Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: "GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and materials costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share has been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor Corp." -Philip > More info at: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> end of 2006 from a previously indicated level of $5 billion. It also is >> targeting an additional $1 billion in net material cost savings. > Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Philip How about, GM lost market share by building cars with cheap feeling controls and inferior materials?  SignatureIf a Vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? > How about, GM lost market share by building cars with cheap feeling > controls and inferior materials? How many times has an owner or manager of a poorly operated small business been quoted as saying "The economy killed my business"? <G> GM's management must have gone to the same schools as those managing many airlines, phone companies, etc... Economies don't kill businesses, managers do. Exactly. In my father's 2004 Saturn, the hood release feels it will break off just about the point when the hood finally opens. I'm sure someday it will. Of course the engine has no low end torque, the cooling fans make the engine sound like a truck and theres plenty more. Makes my Avalon look and feel like the best car on the road. >> Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How about, GM lost market share by building cars with cheap feeling > controls and inferior materials? > Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: > > "GM has been crippled by high Lying, disgusting, pig-headed, greedy, foul REPUBLICAN LIARS WHO pay themselves salaries in THE MILLIONS WHILE THEY DONATE TO f.ckers LIKE TOM DELAY AND STOMP THE MIDDLE CLASS INTO SLAVERY. >> Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > themselves salaries in THE MILLIONS WHILE THEY DONATE TO f.ckers LIKE > TOM DELAY AND STOMP THE MIDDLE CLASS INTO SLAVERY. So, unlearned dick, why did you drop out of Grade 6? >> Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > themselves salaries in THE MILLIONS WHILE THEY DONATE TO f.ckers LIKE > TOM DELAY AND STOMP THE MIDDLE CLASS INTO SLAVERY. There are MORE and RICHER Democrats in Congress having achieved that wealth at the public trough than Republicans. :^) They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national health plan. They got theirs. > Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net material >>> cost savings. > They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would > have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national health > plan. They got theirs. Another foolish statement by Art. > > Thank you Bob. Here's a snip from your article ... the most telling: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >>> billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net material > >>> cost savings. SignatureIt only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention. Bob >> They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They >> would [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >>> material >> >>> cost savings. It sounds foolish if you're asleep ... and pencils out as hideously expensive when you're awake. > It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention. > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>> >>> material >>> >>> cost savings. > It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention. > > Bob My day starts at 3 AM. I'm still wide awake. Are you? The healthcare issue is not one that broke the camels back regarding GM. It is a loss of sales, a product line which is not in tuned to the market and too many plants which are running far below 100 percent. It would help if GM could rid themselves of the labor contracts as one major airline is in the process of doing. Big labor is a huge burden on companies. The big labor bosses tell the minions who to vote for and they dutifully do so with the thought they will get more "bennys". Democrats pander to big labor for that very reason. Democrats have found a cozy little place with big labor. There should be an investigation of the goings on between big labor and the democrat party. Your healthcare national plan needs far far more scrutiny than hillary was willing to give. It failed and I am most happy it did. > >> They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They > >> would [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >> >>> material > >> >>> cost savings. SignatureYou misunderstand me. I was simply agreeing with Art when he wrote "They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national health plan. They got theirs." I still think that Art's statement is true. I never said that the Clinton health care plan was a good one, just that GM's position would have been helped. Bob >> It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention. >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >> >> >>> material >> >> >>> cost savings. I agree that the labor heads are cozy with the Democrats but my understanding is that the typical union members voted for whoever promised a tax cut and of course that was the Republicans since that is all they know how to do. >> It only sounds foolish if you are asleep or not paying attention. >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >> >> >>> material >> >> >>> cost savings. If the garbage you just spewed had come to pass, then WE the Taxpayers would be funding those 'rich' Union medical benefits. A corporate welfare subsidy by us taxpayers. > They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would > have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>>> billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 billion in net material >>>> cost savings. > If the garbage you just spewed had come to pass, then WE the Taxpayers > would be funding those 'rich' Union medical benefits. A corporate welfare > subsidy by us taxpayers. I know I feel a lot better funding Pharmaceutical Companies, Insurance Companies, HMO's, Trial Lawyers, etc. So when the US Toyota workers retire, who'll be finding their medical plans? Ed I don't think the US health care system and get much more expensive or wasteful for taxpayers than it is right now. No other developed country spends more and gets less. > If the garbage you just spewed had come to pass, then WE the Taxpayers > would be funding those 'rich' Union medical benefits. A corporate welfare [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>>> indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an additional $1 >>>>> billion in net material cost savings. > They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They would > have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a national > health plan. They got theirs. Actually I think many executives for old line manufacturing companies, like GM, were all for the government taking over health care exactly because it would have helped bail them out. The groups against it were the one who profit from out current national health care system - Hospitals, HMOs, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Trial Lawyers. I still haven't figured out how these groups managed to pull the wool over "our" eyes. And for any of you who think we don't have a National Help Care system, you are dreaming. We have a system, almost the worst one that could be concocted if your goal was delivering decent health care efficiently and economically. However it serves the interests of the Insurance and Drug companies nicely. Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US Toyota workers when they turn 65? Ed >> They were crippled by making lousy cars for the last 30 years. They >> would have been helped out if they had let Clinton come up with a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ed Toyota. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply >> Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US >> Toyota workers when they turn 65? > Toyota. I like the answer. But why won't Toyota have the same sort of problems as GM? I know how my company is handling the cost of health care for retirees- they are screwing the people who are retired. They increase the co-pay every year and force them into HMOs that make the worst Government system you can imagine look good. Ed >>> Here is food for thought - Who's going to take care of all those US >>> Toyota workers when they turn 65? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ed I am not a market analyst so this is pure speculation on my part, based on business articles and personal experience meeting with Toyota's upper management. AFAIK, the Toyota's only UAW assembly plant is NUMMI and so they are not saddled with above-market benefits. In other words, the pay and benefits for the markets where the assembly plants are located are in line with local conditions and not with a national contract. Toyota's sales, service, and parts operations in the U.S. are much leaner than GM, Ford, and Chrysler operations. Many of my former co-workers came from GM, Ford, & Chrysler and they were all amazed Toyota's offices were staffed with much fewer people. If that is true, then Toyota has a much lower overhead and fewer people with retirement liabilities per vehicle sold than GM & Ford. I've heard complaints in the past that Toyota's assembly operations are too automated and that Toyota should hire more people instead of letting robots do the work. The problem with that argument is that not only do those people cost more today than a robot because of salaries and benefits, they continue to cost more even after they are done working because of retirement benefits. According to this article http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/11/04/toyota.results.reut/ Toyota is the world's most valuable car maker at $165 billion. Toyota just reported that their 3rd quarter 2005 operating profit was down to $3.45 billion, with net profits of $2.59 billion because of heavy investment in new plants. If you annualize the net profit and round down to $10 billion net profit. Not only are Toyota's vehicle sales trending upward, so are their net profits. IMO, Toyota's biggest long-term advantage over GM and Ford is that Toyota's sales come from a much broader global market. According to that article, 60% of Toyota's sales come from areas outside of Japan, and as you probably know, Toyota invests heavily in assembly plants is their major markets. They have 52 overseas manufacturing plants in 26 different countries and sell through 160 importers/distributors. I do not know what the percentage of overseas sales are for GM and Ford, but my impression is that the ratio of domestic vs. overseas sales is the opposite and so an increase or downturn in business in their home market has a proportionately bigger effect on their bottom line. In other words, Toyota has done a better job of hedging its bets by entering multiple markets. Toyota does not have the corporate arrogance that GM, Ford, and Chrysler once had. When the Hyundai Excel and Yugo were introduced and became the poster boys for poor quality, Toyota still studied their competition and I heard predictions from upper management that the Korean brands would one day vie for the same customers as Toyota. Toyota was also aware that their customer base was aging and that they were in danger of becoming the favored brand of retired folks like Buick. Toyota introduced the Scion to make sure they found new customers and were able to compete at the entry level as well as the upper levels. Toyota has a business plan that goes out 20 years, and they share their plans with their employees. Toyota's current sales are well ahead of what was projected when I left the company in 1993. I've heard the argument that Japan's automotive market is very protected, and I agree. On the other hand, GM and Ford did not have left-hand drive vehicles for the Japanese market. Ironically, Japan's import barriers and right-hand drive vehicles made GM and Ford cars a status symbol among the yakuza. Since the yakuza favored GM and Ford, the average mainstream Japanese citizen wouldn't be caught dead driving one. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there. I don't generally respond to such ridiculous posts but I must ask, do you dream this stuff or do you just make it up? There are literally millions of GM vehicles on the road, long out of warranty, with hundreds of thousands of miles on the clock still running fine. When I still owned my fleet service business we serviced thousands of police cars, with over 200 thousands miles on the clock, for years after GM stopped building police cars. Grow up. mike > Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM > product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired > from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the > components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of > the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that > explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there. > Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM product > I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired from Toyota > and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the components in > the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of the warranty > period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that explains 90% of the > problem with GM car reliability right there. Union contracts signed years ago is GM's downfall. Signature> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM > product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired > from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the > components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of > the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that > explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there. Art, You don't really believe this do you? GM does not design cars to just last the warranty period. I don't know exactly what periods GM uses when designing components, but I do know they routinely run prototypes past 250,000 miles during development. I suspect, but do not know, GM uses longer design life periods than the Japanese manufacturers. Toyotas in particular seem to disintegrate after about 10 years. Ed Look at 10 year old Toyotas vs. GM 10 year olds (if you can find any). Toyotas are almost as good as new, and it's reflected in their market value (and no it's not just complete delusion on the part of buyers). GM's cars after 10 years are belching blue/black smoke and sound like a bucket of bolts. They are junk. YOu have to pay someone to tow it off your lot. > Look at 10 year old Toyotas vs. GM 10 year olds (if you can find any). bulllllllllllllllllll > Toyotas are almost as good as new, and it's reflected in their market sh.t > value (and no it's not just complete delusion on the part of buyers). bubba > GM's cars after 10 years are belching blue/black smoke and sound like a > bucket of bolts. They are junk. YOu have to pay someone to tow it off > your lot. GM makes damn good cars. I consider most of this kind of silly flame nuttin but a bunch of celebrity roasting. I almost NEVER see 60s vintage Toyotas on the road... GM is not a write off. The executives are just taking a good arse whuppin, because the UAW won't back down on exporting jobs to Mexico. Don't confuse Republican blues with New Orleans blues. [quote http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B93597CD6%2D2181%2D4A83%2D9475% 2D419DDD3D4F42%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=] Delphi Corp., which has been trying to stave off a strike by its workers, dropped a deadline for reaching a new labor contract with the United Auto Workers while GM agreed to forgo price cuts from the bankrupt parts maker. [/quote] Looks like Delphi brass is gonna back down... thats what you call American Values. GM makes junk. That's why they hold so little of their purchase price after a few years. The market speaks. It's worth more than random statements by you. The UAW "won't back down". Good. I hope they don't. I hope they drive GM into the graveyard and then we'll see what happens to all the fat union contracts and all the fat union contributions to democrat politicians. >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM >> product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ed I guess my father's 87 Camry is a mirage. > >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM > >> product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ed > I guess my father's 87 Camry is a mirage. A quick google of 1963 impala http://www.dealsonwheels.com/search/detailbig.cfm/Autos__ID/000630-200508-000055 http://www.dealsonwheels.com/database/cars/000630-200508-000055_3big.jpg http://www.chevytrader.com/chevy-for-sale-164.html You will almost never see aToyota from 1963 on the road bubba >> >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM >> >> product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You will almost never see aToyota from 1963 on the road bubba There are a couple of reasons for this: Toyota only sold 316 Land Cruisers in 1961. I don't have the sales figures for 1963 but the volume certainly was not the same as the Impala at the time. At the time, Toyotas were a low-cost alternative to main stream U.S. brands and were not considered collectibles by many auto enthusiasts so not many have been restored or even maintained. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > >> >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM > >> >> product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > for 1963 but the volume certainly was not the same as the Impala at the > time. sure, but... did you get my main point? >> >> >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any >> >> >> GM [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > sure, but... did you get my main point? Which point was yours? I didn't notice a previous post from lane walker in this thread. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > >> >> >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any > >> >> >> GM [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Which point was yours? I didn't notice a previous post from lane walker in > this thread. oops that was me. My point was that uh... oh yeah, that the USA has been at it a helluva lot longer than anywhere else first of all... and secondly, we birthed the auto market as it is today. Yeah. That was it. And hopefully the same brotherhood that turned out those 63 Impalas are going to get their voices back so we can arrive at a solution that doesn't favor the crooks in the executive suites. >> >> >> >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than >> >> >> >> any [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > their voices back so we can arrive at a solution that doesn't favor the > crooks in the executive suites. Some background on me... Although I worked for a Japanese car manufacturer, I grew up with American iron and have a fondness for 1960s models. The fact that may 1960's era cars are still on the road does not necessarily mean that they are great cars or durable. Although some of those cars still have their original engine, transmission, and body parts, my guess is that the majority of those vehicles have had those pieces replaced or rebuilt unless it was one of those cars that lived much of its life parked in a garage or barn. I loved my 1968 Mustang because of the way it could smoke the tires and kick you in the rear when you popped the clutch, but realistically, a modern Hyundai probably handles better, brakes better, burns cleaner, and will need less maintenance and repair than that car. A 1963 Impala probably was more reliable and durable than a 1963 Corona. A comparison of 43 year old vehicles is not a valid reason to make statements about the quality, reliability, or durability of current products from those auto makers unless neither of those companies made any changes in vehicle design, materials, and production methods since that time. SignatureRay O correct the return address punctuation to reply > >> Although I am not a fan of my Avalon, it is far superior than any GM > >> product I've driven for years. A few years ago a quality guru retired > >> from Toyota and picked up by GM. His major recommendation was that the > >> components in the cars should be engineered to last 100k miles instead of > >> the warranty period as GM was currently practicing. I believe that > >> explains 90% of the problem with GM car reliability right there. I haven't had a GM product for many years, but I had several in the past. There were certainly reliability problems with certain GM parts. One part I remember was their water pumps. They would usually fail by leaking by about 20,000 miles, yet the rebuilt auto shop replacements never failed me for the next 70,000 miles. Imagine that, the rebuilt parts were much better than the original equipment parts. GM's problem is just taking too low a bidder on parts or making them too cheap themselves. I've not had a water pump fail with any other car. > > Art, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > longer design life periods than the Japanese manufacturers. Toyotas in > > particular seem to disintegrate after about 10 years. That's a silly unsupported statement. >> You don't really believe this do you? GM does not design cars to just >> last the warranty period. I don't know exactly what periods GM uses when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Ed > I guess my father's 87 Camry is a mirage. No, more like an exception. In a typical week I drive 500 miles. I see a lot of cars. And I never see a generation 1 or generation 2 Camry. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does imply there are not many left in my area. The roads around my area are clogged with 0 to 6 year old Camry, and older ones were plentiful when new. They just seem to disappear after they hit 7 years old. My neighbor's Camry is one of the older ones I see and it is a pathetic looking vehicle for one that is less than 10 years old. My 14 year old F150 is in better shape. The Cressida we owned literally started falling apart when it was 6 years old. The paint looked like crap, the "black" trim turned silver, the interior plastic started warping and fading. At the time I thought it was an outstandingly bad car, but from what I see these days, it was a typical Toyota product - dull, over priced, well assembled, third rate design that doesn't hold up. Of the big three Japanese brands (Nissan, Honda, Toyota), I'd rate Toyotas best at initial build quality and worst at long term quality. Ed "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:gmQif.6970 > I guess my father's 87 Camry is a mirage. Hey I actually saw two generation 2 Camrys today - at the same time. One was dead on the side of the road in the process of being towed. The other was moving under it's own power with only a minor smoke screen behind it. Both looked like crap - dull and peeling paint and faded plastic trim. The plastic bumper finishing stuff on the mobile one was in the process of falling off. Oh what a feeling, but at least one was Moving Forward (but not for long from the looks of it). Ed Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage, afaik. Most companies don't. Why should they? GM offered gold plated coverage b/c their union insisted on it. Many companies don't offer pensions anymore either, although they do match 401K contributions in some manner. > Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage, > afaik. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many companies don't offer pensions anymore either, although they do > match 401K contributions in some manner. Health care costs are breaking GM's back with their generous benifits and add over 1500 dollars to the average price of a car. It is all reaching critical mass now together with labor costs. Between health care costs and labor costs, it accounts for over 70% of the cost of building a vehicle at GM. It cannot go on forever. Quite frankly, if the only thing wrong with a GM car was that it cost $1500 more than the equivalent import I would still buy it. Unfortunately they suck. >> Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage, >> afaik. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > labor costs, it accounts for over 70% of the cost of building a vehicle at > GM. It cannot go on forever. > Medicare will. Toyota doesn't offer their retirees medical coverage, > afaik. > > Most companies don't. Why should they? GM offered gold plated > coverage b/c their union insisted on it. Yep, just like the Republican lobbyists who forced the state legislatures into promising benefits 30 friggen years ago that I have to pay now. > Many companies don't offer pensions anymore either, although they do > match 401K contributions in some manner. Its not about pensions. Its about greed. Its about some fat a.s CEO sitting there pulling down 4.3 million dollars while he slashes 30,000 jobs from the dole. Delphi should thank the UAW for letting them back down on their deadline. The UAW could kill Delphi dead ;) > NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans to > eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as part of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a previously indicated level of $5 billion. It also is targeting an > additional $1 billion in net material cost savings. It's a new world economy. Get used to it. Bolting on bumpers for 65 dollars an hour (wages+benifits) won't cut it any more. Working class Americans are destined to a working class standard of living. > > NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Motors (GM) Monday said it now plans to > > eliminate 30,000 manufacturing positions from 2005 through 2008 as part of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > It's a new world economy. Get used to it. Bolting on bumpers for 65 whatever, dickus. > dollars an hour (wages+benifits) won't cut it any more. Working class > Americans are destined to a working class standard of living. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.