After perusing the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) contract with GM, I reckon both sides got a good deal. The UAW secured job guarantees: assurances that GM won’t off-shore new and existing products for the North American market. For its part, The General gets to off-load the lion’s share of its fixed costs AND a chance to lower the pay scale for a third of its hourly workforce. If the contract is ratified, the UAW protects its existing members’ livelihoods and GM becomes a lower-cost producer. No question: it’s a new lease on life.
By removing The Mother of All Fixed Costs (retiree health care), GM will have the chance to do something it couldn’t do for decades: stop making cars. That may sound like the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory, but GM’s always-on product spigot has been the bane of its existence. Sure, it generated cash to pay the hired help's health care, but it also created a tsunami of new product. The flood drove down new car prices, lowered used car residuals and dragged all eight GM brands (including Cadillac) into K-Mart country.
Under the new contract, GM can throttle back factory output to more closely match supply with demand. With careful husbandry, residual values of used GM vehicles will rise. Even better, with all that slop drained from the system, GM can (at least in theory) make greater profits on lower volumes, or lower prices further to gain market share, or add content, or some combination thereof. What was once a desperate struggle to sell whatever came out the factory gates suddenly becomes a more considered battle to meet or beat the competition.
Actually, this has always been CEO Rick Wagoner’s turnaround plan: cut costs until they match production and then build the business back up from there. And a damn fine plan it was too, back in ’05; back when GM’s US market share stood at 26.2 percent. And it was still a pretty good idea the next year, when GM’s market share sank to 24.7 percent. And you gotta love it today, when GM’s market share has tumbled to 22.1 percent. The question is, how low can GM go?
The short answer: another three or four percentage points of US market share. If GM production drops below that level– 12 percent or 500k units in production terms– the business will rapidly become unsustainable.
Prior to '05, GM has been shedding four percent US market share roughly every six years. The company lost that much ground from 1991 (35 percent) to 1997 (31.3 percent); and from 2000 (28.2 percent) to 2006 (24.7 percent). But those were good years for the US car industry. Considering the four percent hit since '05 and today’s contracting new car market, it's easy to imagine that timeline could contract violently. And then it’s lights out.
I repeat: all the cost savings won’t be enough if GM’s North American profits continue to fall faster than its savings– which is what’s happening now. Yes, GM’s sold its remaining "non core" assets and put together a nice little $32b nest egg. Even after deducting $5b to $6b to pay for the new health care VEBA (the remainder involves a transfer of existing VEBA control from GM to the UAW), that still leaves the automaker plenty of time to lose plenty of money. But postponing defeat is not the same as assuring victory.
The new UAW contract could be a genuine "get out of jail free" card, but GM still can’t cut their way to prosperity. That’s the mantra pundits chanted two years ago, when Rick Wagoner announced the first “historic health care giveback” (a.k.a. a $3b GM-funded health care VEBA). It’s just as true now, with a $29.9b union-controlled health care VEBA in the works. Until and unless GM recaptures lost ground in the sales charts, or at least holds steady, the company is on a downwards trajectory, spiraling into the abyss.
Course correction requires reversing a 17-year trend. With eight brands and 7100 dealers selling some 65 models, what are the chances GM has the focus it needs to reignite vehicle sales across the board? Has GM’s management team learned their lessons re: badge engineering, brand positioning, customer service, product quality and long-term marketing? Are they now ready to put in the long, hard slog needed to gradually and steadily improve their existing products, rather than swinging for the fences with Hail Mary newbies like, dare I say it, the Chevrolet Volt?
Dream on. If anything, this bold UAW contract will create a new sense of complacency, as both union and management congratulate and [generously] reward themselves for pulling back from the brink of disaster. Whatever brave plans GM has for its future, its stultifying bureaucracy will, as always, have the last word.
Let ’em crash.
it is a magic illusion of having 8 brands and 65 models. what 8 brands does gm have? egh….. let`s see… chevrolet, pontiac, saturn, buick, cadillac,hummer. I have 5. the rest of them represent nothing but a bought share in those companies. would you call isuzu,or saab a gm product. don`t become ridiculous. what a single fuckin` bolt has a gm designed for a single isuzu or daewoo, or whatever opel? so i guess we have to count out the companies that deal with zero-gm-engineering. and serving vectra platform to saab doesn`t count as gm -engineering. 65 models, or models plus rebadges plus, regrilles plus modifications? hummer-2 models cadillac- 4models buick- 5models saturn- egh,… 2models pontiac- 2models chevrolet-7models. total-22models The models that represented no detroit engineering or didn`t have a different exterior( starting from a-pillar configuration) were not included in the list. ( for example prev gen astra -based chevrolet cobalt, or daewoo buit leganzas and nubiras, or Caddy escalade, for the sake of having the same exterior as chevrolet tahoe, gm trucks and suv range was also narroved for exterior of chevrolet pickup truck is identical to suburban/tahoe ,etc) now you have an answer- You can`t make money if the job is done by someone else, you can`t sell 4 million copies if you have only 22 models. Now the main point- 1Design and engineer cars at home, or direct subsidiaries. 2. No exterior rebadge.period. I MEAN PERIOD. 3. reliability, fit and finish, quality, texture. 4. life cycle of each model. narrrrrrrrrow it. 5. always add new models. NOT CUT. 1 MODEL SHOULD BE REPLACED BY ONE. no less. 6. up to date technologies. ( before this question comes question of R&d -see question3) 7. don`t compare to domestics, compare to the best. 8. add versions to each model, whether exterior,or enginewise. 9. Vote me a CEO of gm and in 15 years I will bring you back to a fair game, recognized name and market share and profits. choose any…….4
jurisb :
GM’s eight brands.
1. Chevrolet
2. Pontiac
3. Saturn
4. Buick
5. Cadillac
6. Hummer
7. GMC
8. Saab
Ostensibly. I mean, point taken.
It seems like magic! Chief wizard Wagoner waves the magic VEBA wand and all of a sudden all those much maligned legacy costs have disappeared. POOF!
The strike wasn’t long enough, that’s for sure. I’m still not clear on where the money for VEBA comes from if they continue to lose market share. As the saying goes, someting’s got to give. Starting with cars that don’t hold their value, have less than good interiors, impractical vehicles like the hummer3, and a nice recall or two, any one of these things could derail it.
The upcoming recession is going to play havoc with the 2.8’s “recovery plans”. If God forbid “recession” becomes “depression” then, assuming a 75% FALL in US auto sales per compared to pre-depression (as happened between 1929 and 1932-1933), the loss of 12.75 million sales per year divided between all the major auto companies, will mean the absolute closure and loss of the 2.8, no doubt in my mind.
As for “any” imported cars – probably only the few ultra wealthy could afford this. If the dollar continues to collapse vis a vis other currencies, then “imports” will essentially cease, because they are too expensive.
Therefore, if we go into a depression, only companies with so-called transplanted auto factories in the US, will be able to survive as major players in the US.
Of course in a worst case scenario, we could end up with stagflation, hyperinflation (to monetize the huge debts) AND a depression – but then, we won’t be worrying about cars – but about having enough bread to eat. Just like many of our great grandparents between 1930 and 1935.
I thought GM was funding the VEBA $24B due on 1 Jan 08. GM market cap is about $22B. UAW could buy GM with the VEBA money. Aint that a kick?
Yes, the UAW can now buy GM. Talk about an exercise in masochism!
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/09/28/could-the-uaw-buy-gm
God, I’m sick of this. So much still hangs on forces out of GM’s control that I can’t possibly see a happy ending here. The UAW will take all of 3 years to screw up the VEBA and piss off their members, and everyone already knows that GM’s management will be spending money like a gambler with a coke habit instead of saving up for the next bribe to keep the lines running.
If we take this contract at face value, then, GM has quite a few tools available to give it the boost it needs. It can now scale back production to make it in line with demand, plus it’s obtained many of the concessions it wanted. So it all looks good for GM. I really mean it when I say “well done”. It’s nice to see some good news going GM’s way. However, lest we forget, GM still has much work to do. Their products are still underwhelming, they still have the “perception gap” millstone around their necks and 2 generations of customers sworn off their cars to woo back. And make no mistake, each one of those problems is pivotal in getting GM back to strength. GM can be the most profitable maker of cars in the world, but if it doesn’t sell cars, then the whole exercise is pointless. GM got the concessions it wanted and now has a real start on making a new GM. Let’s come back in 2 years’ time and see what GM’s management have made of this new opportunity…..
I always thought K Mart was a little better than Wal Mart but not quite as good as Target?
glenn126 :
Therefore, if we go into a depression, only companies with so-called transplanted auto factories in the US, will be able to survive as major players in the US.
So that would leave Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Subaru? Are there any others?
Gm has too many dealers! example: In Amarillo, Texas, there are 3 chevy dealers and 2 gmc dealers. 5 places to buy a pickup truck built by gm and 5 places to buy an suv built by gm. there is 1 toyota dealer. population is around 200k. that is the whole country in a micrcosm for gm . this cant be sustained.
Well if at least nothing else it means I can get a camaro. They can die 3-4 years after that.
Based on a 20% market share of a 15MM per year vehicle market, the average GM store would sell 35 cars a month. Meanwhile, the average Toyota store moves 172 cars per month. To get to the Toyota average, GM needs no more than about 1,600 dealers. That amounts to a 77% decline in the number of GM dealers. GM can’t afford the costs of closing that many dealers, and the negative press would be brutal.
Even if we give GM a break and have them sell half as many cars per dealer, that comes out to 2,900 dealers; a decline of 60%.
The math ain’t there.
Assuming a 5% per year dealer runoff, it takes 20 years to get to the right level of dealerships. At a 15% annual cut in dealers, they make the magic number in 8 years. Still not enough time.
It’s not the UAW. It’s not product (Well, it IS, but…). It’s the fact that GM doesn’t have a sustainable retail model and no way to buy themselves out of the hole.
They have too many brands and too many dealers for the market they’re in. And state franchise laws won’t allow them to cull dealers fast enough.
But let’s drink the Wagoner Kool-Aid, and assume GM’s market share flies up to 30%. Even then, they are only selling 53 cars per month per dealer, about 30% of the equivalent Toyota store.
The math ain’t there.
VEBA buys them some time to plan for it, but GM has no choice but to go Chapter 11 if they want to re-align their business and retail model with reality.
They’ll be Chvrolet, Buick, Cadillac, and MAYBE GMC. All the rest are goners. And for GM’s survival, the sooomer the better. All of Saturn can be folded into Chevy, as can Pontiac. Hummer can be folded into a GMC that concentrates on medium-duty trucks.
They need mid-priced cars like Buick, and luxury in Cadillac. Attach GMC/Hummer stores to Chevy franchises. Euthanize the rest.
Heck, they probably don’t even need Buick.
How big a factor is the continuing “jobs bank”? Scaling back production means still having to pay the UAW.
Two years ago persons on this site and elsewhere were saying that GM would quickly go bankrupt if share slipped below 25. Its below 25. Any idea on GM’s current cash burn?
vitek :
Two years ago persons on this site and elsewhere were saying that GM would quickly go bankrupt if share slipped below 25. Its below 25. Any idea on GM’s current cash burn?
I don’t recall anyone on this site making that claim; certainly not myself.
GM cash burn is THE question. Without AN answer. Even looking at their quarterly reports with a magnifying glass, it’s fiendishly difficult to discern how much money’s going up GM’s chimney.
Suffice it to say, we’re keeping an eye open for any signs– interest payment, deferred liabilities, etc.– and will keep you posted.
bfg9k – yep, Hyundai has a US factory, their partner Kia is soon building one (if they get moving), Mitsubishi has a factory in Normal, Illinois (seriously!), Mercedes has an Alabama factory, BMW has a factory in the Carolinas I believe, and VW has a factory in Puebla, Mexico (assuming NAFTA doesn’t die, that is).
Oh yes, Mazda has a JV plant in Flat Rock, Michigan which may or may not survive, if Ford dies.
Forgot Suzuki’s JV plant in Ontario (once again, same problem as both VW – will NAFTA survive – AND Mazda – will the JV survive the death of the partner – in this case, GM?)
GM’s eight brands.
1. Chevrolet
2. Pontiac
3. Saturn
4. Buick
5. Cadillac
6. Hummer
7. GMC
8. Saab
GM clearly is a major global player, so it’s brands also include Opel, Vauxhall and Holden. That makes 11 brands they are trying to take to market. Toyota does almost the same sales level with 2.5 brands, Toyota and Lexus plus the Scion sub-brand of Toyota. Since Scions are all sold inside Toyota dealer it is not really a stand alone brand.
Even Ford is more brand efficient with Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo adding up to “only” 6. Count the 30% of Mazda in that mix and you get to 7. Ford’s main volume brand around the world is … Ford! What an idea.
In fact, GM probably should also count “GM” as a brand since from time to time they put a bunch of corporate image marketing money behind it. No other major automaker has a corporate name which isn’t also the name of it’s best selling vehicle brand.
jurisb seems to only want to be count the North American aspect of GM’s business, but like it or not all of the major multi-nationals are just that, multi-national. They allocate resources and jobs across the globe as management thinks best. That isn’t going to change.
I guess I am confused as how they can scale back production now. If all the jobs are still there and the job bank didn’t really disappear why can they now make less cars.
The other question is have they even scaled back a little since the strike, I thought they were still churning out cars just like before the 2 day vacation.
Also where is the money for the VEBA coming from, thin air? They still have to pay, so the obligation and cash still leave their coffers no matter how they mask the paperwork. So does this mean they slice off a portion of there much needed assets to somehow create cash or they dive deeper into debt, same problem just moved to ao different office.
I guess I don’t see any change or rosey future for them.
Redbarchetta : Also where is the money for the VEBA coming from, thin air? They still have to pay, so the obligation and cash still leave their coffers no matter how they mask the paperwork. At the end of June ‘07, GM had about $20b in an existing health care VEBA, plus $3b in the “historic health care giveback” VEBA. They’re set to kick-in another $4b – $5b (as stated in the article), plus guarantee another $1.6b. Put it all together, send it over to the UAW and they’re done. The markets love this stuff, so it should raise GM’s credit ratings and make it easier to borrow the money. I guess I am confused as how they can scale back production now. If all the jobs are still there and the job bank didn’t really disappear why can they now make less cars. Under the terms of the new agreement, roughly 30 percent of GM’s workforce can be replaced with lower-paid workers (who probably pay the same union dues, but that’s another story). By and large, these are the infamous UAW janitors and greens keepers. In all probability, GM will offer these non-assembly types a buyout package to accelerate the process of reducing their overheads. The jobs bank hasn’t disappeared, but the contract draws a line under it (no more in) AND forces workers in the bank to get their asses over to more distant factories, should there be work for them. The main point: with lower fixed costs, GM doesn’t have to keep the factories churning-out product to generate the cash flow needed to pay for those overheads. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will throttle back, but they can do so without huge consequences. At least initially.
With eight brands and 7100 dealers selling some 65 models, what are the chances GM has the focus it needs to reignite vehicle sales across the board? Has GM’s management team learned their lessons re: badge engineering, brand positioning, customer service, product quality and long-term marketing?
The answers are none, and no.
These questions get to the heart of the matter. While cost cutting is an essential component of most turnaround plans, a turnaround plan for a company this troubled that doesn’t remedy core problems is doomed to fail.
GM’s most glaring problems can be distilled into two basic points: Lack of customer focus, and too immense of an bureaucracy to provide that focus.
GM needs to stop producing 70+ cars for the North American market, and cut that amount by perhaps two-thirds. The only reason GM produces 70+ cars (or about 50 too many) is because it is supporting these eight North American badges.
Here’s a basic factoid for you: Globally, GM and Toyota tend to spend the same amount on R&D each year. If GM is assembling perhaps 40-50 more nameplates than is Toyota with the same R&D money, is it any surprise which automakers spends more on development on a per-vehicle basis? Is it any more surprising that the company that spends less per vehicle gets a lesser result?
It seems that Wagoner doesn’t want to make the obvious hard choices that a CEO skilled in crisis management would make. That’s why he needs to go, because he is trying to manage GM as if it is going through some temporary doldrums that can be patched up with some quick cost cutting. That is nearly not enough, and unless the Board finally realizes this and makes a move, this Titanic is headed straight for the ice. Bring your lifeboats…
I need to rummage around in my jewelry box for the “30” pin Ron Zarella gave me in what seems just a few years ago……
Had no idea about the existing $20b VEBA, that one is news to me.
I guess we will just have to see what they do. I really don’t think they are going to cut production enough to make a meaningful difference and we will still see substantial fleet sales. The company as a whole really hasn’t changed, if the thinking is the same the end results wont be much different.
“Had no idea about the existing $20b VEBA, that one is news to me.”
Me too. I would love to see backup documentation for it.
Dave,
Do you also have a “40” pin they handed out before that (referring to managements pledge to get GMNA market share back up to 40%.) Certainly would be worth some money on EBay.
If I understand correctly, the new agreement also allows them to force surplus labor (think Jobs Bank) to go to plants farther from home. Before it was 50 miles radius, now it’s reputed to be much larger. This allows them manufacturing flexibility – ie. cancel a shift at this car plant and move that whole shift to a truck plant 250 miles away.
In the end though it still doesn’t mean much in the big picure.
“Do you also have a “40″ pin they handed out before that (referring to managements pledge to get GMNA market share back up to 40%.)”
Anyone else recall the Business Week cover with pictures of GM brass and the headline “Driving for 55”? (Referring to the General’s confident plan for taking a fifty-five percent market share.) Not since the Ford T’s epic decline in the 20’s has a US auto maker lost thirty-plus points of market share. Not so long ago, the Big 3 fought furiously over gains and losses of a mere fraction of a point.
We need to see what Business Week says about Detroit’s future. It also had a cover story, “The Death of Equities,” shortly before the Dow began its climb from well under 1,000 to over 14,000. BW can be a good negative indicator.
GM doesn’t really have eight brands.
They have six. Pontiac-Buick-GMC is, for all intents and purposes, one brand now, a sort of Chevy-clone that is a micrometer more upscale. Most dealers of these three brands are combined. And GMC is doing well-sales are actually up for them so far this year. So, as long as GMC exists, Pontiac and Buick will also continue to exist, so GMC truck/SUV dealers will have some cars to sell on the side.
Now, it’s also obvious that Chevy and Caddy stay. So five brands are staying so far.
The three left over ones are Hummer, Saab, and Saturn. Saab’s sales in the US are microscopic (three or four thousand vehciles a month)-but they always have been, so, unless they drop further (which they might), it’ll probably limp along. Hummer’s down a bit, but that’s not really surprising, and it’s also a niche brand.
So, that leaves Saturn. Of all of GM’s brands, it’s been the best treated recently, getting an expanded line up of all-new product-almost all of which has been a dud. Sales are up so far this year, but just barely, and they’ve gotten so much new stuff, it would be hard for them not to be. I predict sales for Saturn will be down-a lot-next year.
This may be the last gasp for Saturn. It was a dumb idea when it was first created (basically, an entire brand and dealer network to sell only Corolla-clones), and the attempt to move it upscale is also failing, for many reasons (for one, people don’t want to pay thirty or forty grand for a Saturn, especially if you can’t haggle). It has never made GM money, and it never will.
It probably would make sense to kill Saturn when the lifespan of it’s current product is over (say, three or four years from now). Of course, Oldsmobile shows that killing a brand costs you money in the short term, and you lose those sales for good. But if there’s no profit there (and there isn’t), only red ink, there’s no point in continuing.
Pontiac-Buick-GMC is, for all intents and purposes, one brand now . . .
Except that they aren’t really. There’s still some product overlap (though some of that will end soon when the kill the Grand Prix), and they’re targeting three very different groups of people who just happen to be shopping at the same dealership. I mean, it’s not uncommon to see Chevrolet-Cadillac dealers, but that doesn’t make them one brand.
If Pontiac/Buick/GMC was one brand, I wouldn’t see a Pontiac/GMC dealer less than an 1/8 mile from a Buick dealer in West Houston. (There was an Olds dealer across the street, but they turned Nissan in a hurry)
And in Southwest Houston, I wouldn’t see a Cadillac/Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealer. Selling Caddies with G5s? You gotta be kidding me!!!
But I’m not, and the divisions need to be trimmed or consolidated consistently. Right now its a big ‘ol mess.
Another interesting sales month.
Start the Toyota mediocrity watch series.
Just a comment about Saturn only contributing ‘red ink’ to the bottom line. What you need to do is move away from whether a product is making an absolute profit, and look if it’s covering it’s variable cost (now really just material and freight – labour is essentially a fixed cost – thanks jobs bank). So, if the vehicle line is making more than it’s variable cost, it’s actually contributing something to cover the fixed cost of the whole company. And if it’s going to cost an arm-and-a-leg to close the brand dealership, you might as well keep it going as without that revenue, you have to recover (probably virtually the same) fixed cost over less vehicles.
Sorry if I’m stating the obvious – but there’s accounting, and there’s management accounting.
And then there’s crisis management accounting.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Thanks Sajeev – nice to be able to smile when reading these editorials ;-)
What an incredible year for Wagoner and company. First they fight off Kerkorian and his bid to force GM into a merger with Renault-Nissan. Then, they shepherd their largest supplier, to whom they owe billions, through bankrupcy without slowing production. They absorb a housing crisis that hurts their most profitable markets — mortgages and pickups.
Next comes the debt crisis which radically slows the private equity market, but GM still pulls off the Allison deal at face value just before the market collapses. To top it all off, they survive a strike and sign a deal that is widely viewed as historic and game-changing.
An epic series of events, and I really am impressed that GM has achieved the one thing that matters above all others: survival.
jthorner, you could argue that Ford and many other companies mentioned have way more brands than you’ve counted, if you take into account their austrasian Ford, and European Fords they are completely different to their NA versions (Euro focus to US focus), they are seperate brands to an extent, its their equivalent Opel, Holden. Toyota is the same, slowly everyones becoming more globalised design wise and production wise, but we have yet to see a true world car.
As for the VEBA isnt it good news that GM already has the majority of money set away for this project? If its a case of wiping slate clean when all said and done, could this be a master stroke of hoodwinking everybody by RickW etc?
Maybe I can help a little in everyones understanding/questions concerning the new model regarding the “jobs bank.”
1.most people enrolled in the jobs bank have been from northern Ohio or MI.The additional 100 mile radius-moving possible openings is 150 miles now.This equates to a blanket coverage for most,but not all of existing G.M. plants.
2.S.E.L. or secured employment levels has been removed.This program worked hand in hand with the old structure of the jobs bank.Any economic downturn that directly related to the amount of manpower needed at any facality never equated to a conventional lay-off.You simply entered into the “bank” and hoped that you would be needed for something other counting 12 x 12 windows.I guess!
3.G.I.S.= guaranteed income stream! O.K.I know a perk when I see it.God love it.My hats off to the UAW bargaineers that got that demand meet.However….that to is a perk of the past.
4.If an employee currently enters the jobs bank,that employee will have to relocate to another plant within 150 miles in 24 months,Provided openings exist.All openings corporate wide will however be offered to the employee.If this employee(s) doesn’t accept the new location then after the 24 months they will be giving the equavilent of the Special Attrition Package depending on their seniority.See S.A.P. of 2006.
My opionion is that with G.M. agreeing to hire all temporary workers currently at many locations,Anyone going into the jobs bank had better hope for an opening.Good luck Shrevesport and Arlington TX. assembly.Wilmington Delaware will lose its product of solstice and sky production.It’s new home will be along side the Corvette in Bowling Green KY.And the Moraine assembly plant in Dayton Ohio has no further product as of this date.Builders of the Envoy & Trailblazer.Plus that Saab SUV…I know it sucks.Trailblazer with an ignition on the consule:)
We insiders will or have been calling Dayton, Ohio the new Flint Michigan.G.M.’s still going to cut and cut deep.So to all my bro’s and sis’s make you plant or daily operation as profitable as possible.
And G.M. management….you really dont have labor to blame anymore.Lets see if you can actually get you’re crap together and begin to make good buisness decisions.IS IT POSSIBLE?That means from the front line supervisor to the ones in charge of design and enginneering/quality.We depend on you and you depend on us.Thats the change we on the floor of the factories want.Change you’re method of operations with the labor aspect and managements should also change.Because the current model of how they run a day to day operation is a failure.From top to bottom.I’m looking at you Wagner.The clocks ticking and I’m thinking- no I’m certain if managements current game plan is that of the past,there’s hell to pay come 2011.Right when the 2007 contract with the UAW expires.
Interestingly enough, GM sales somehow are hanging in there while Ford is getting slaughtered and even mighty Toyota is taking some hits.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales_17;_ylt=Amv.IJDkUUm1fnhwAIZK1XUE1vAI
I like the idea of a Toyota Mediocrity Watch. Most of Toyota’s redesigns have in many ways taken their products backwards.
Toyota sales are down 4% in a month when Honda is up 9% and Nissan is up 7% and at a time when the new Tundra is selling much better than last year’s model. Prius availability is also excellent now compared to being a waiting list car last year.
Also, I’m seeing a whole lot of Camrys in the Hertz rental fleet and available as resales at hertzusedcars.com. Two years ago here in Northern California Hertz’ used car lot had 85% or more GM and Ford product, now it is over 50% Japanese and Korean stuff. Could Toyota be stuffing volume into the rental fleets at a time when GM and Ford are backing away from them?
Robert Farago
“And you gotta love it today, when GM’s market share has tumbled to 22.1 percent.”
Must be the new math. Using today’s figures from Automotive News, GM’s sales to date in ’07 versus the industry are 2,934,093/12,351,475 or a 23.8% share.
For September (and yes, we all know about incentives etc.), the numbers are 334,974/1,315,357 or 25.5%. In its press release, GM claims to have had a 25 plus % share for the third quarter.
GM reports “deliveries” while others report “sales.” Don’t we need inventory data to accurately calculate GM’s market share?
righttttt…8brands. what models does gmc have? besides shiny concepts. well, acadia? well, i counted it into saturn model range, otherwise poor saturn would be left pantless.
saab? If a company buys other company, does it become a brand of other country? Is Mack french? Is Marantz american? IS 21st Century Fox japanese?
Is rolls-royce german now?
how about lambo when it was a part of chrysler? did you call a Diablo a nice american sports car?
what about Fairchild-Dornier? american or german?
i know how desperate you are to have real products in times, when your country is pushing hard….services, while products come …hardly.
why don`t we apply FAIR GAME rules, and count gm what it really deserves, the models which have real gm engineering in them.
I wonder what model range would ford have , if they couldn`t parasite on mazda. chrysler without bloodsucking from mitsu. gm without pumping dry german opel or korean daewoo….
I wonder what the car industry would look like , if we had to apply fair game rules. and fair game statistics. guys do you really believe that toyota matrix and pontiac vibe is joint venture child? like what physical goddamned parts did gm design in these cars? where did gm get hybrid system? did it come from r&d research or they bought it from japanese? unfortunately you know the answer…………
“where did gm get hybrid system? did it come from r&d research”
absolutely
the 2-mode hybrid was invented at Allison in Indianapolis
check the patents
I have to say I’m really suprised that this does seem like a good deal for both sides. I didn’t anticipate the $20B VEBA account to already be in existence. Didn’t I hear they had ~$50B unfunded health care liability? Obviously it could have been better, but this has to be the best compromise between the UAW and GM ever. GM does also deserves credit for managing the crisis layed out by SherbornSean. Now all they have to do is focus on the products!
GM’s main problem seems to be they have competition. If not for customers having a choice to buy something else, they would be in fat city.
The one thing no contract or labor agreement can ever address is the customer and his money. It is the oil the engine runs on and they are 2 quarts low at least. This requires a total attitude adjustment from the top down, and that is not forthcoming.