Plenty of industry watchers predicted that Chrysler wouldn’t restart production after the company extended its Christmas shutdown by two weeks, to January 19. As that date approaches, ChryCo’s CEO has let it be known that the ailing American automaker may not make autos again until… later. Bob Nardelli told reporters at the North American International Auto Show today that the company has a responsibility “to make sure we’re not jamming dealers” to buy cars. That’s not how Bill Rosado, owner of a Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealership in Milford, Pa., sees it. Bill told The Wall Street Journal that he’s actively resisting the company’s requests to add more stock to his already-crowded lot. “We’re not ordering any cars in spite of the pressure they give us. We are going to sit tight with what we have,” Mr. Rosado said. “We don’t see any peak coming up where all of a sudden Chryslers are going to be desired.” True dat.
Chrysler’s sales are in free fall, down 53 percent for December and over 30 percent for the year, it’s hard to take Nardelli’s comment as anything other than a tacit admission that Chrysler is out of business. If Chrysler doesn’t even try to make and sell vehicles again, even if it’s just to park them on an airfield somewhere, GM’s pursuit of additional bailout bucks just got a lot harder. The public outcry over a $4b loan that defaulted in less than a month, and the accusations that Chyrsler owner Cerberus played Uncle Sugar for a fool, will be deafening. Won’t they?
That’s good news. How about refunding the 4 billion dollars to be put for better use.
Is this like the ominous separation which comes before the inevitable divorce? I’ve already taken to saying “they don’t make Chryslers anymore”.
BTW… how does this all play out for VW with the Routan? Is that little bastard out of production too? If the Routan dies with Chrysler then it might be the shortest lived VW product in this market.
You would all yell at them for making cars, too, so what’s the point?
Wonder if they will start making cars again before Feb 17 when they saunter up to the bailout buffet again?
The public outcry over a $4b loan that defaulted in less than a month, and the accusations that Chrysler owner Cerberus played Uncle Sugar for a fool, will be deafening. Won’t they?
RF—Don’t give up your day job in favor of a career in finance. Your naïveté is showing.
Chry will have a highly polished and rehearsed answer to blow past the legislators for everything they say and do until every last dollar has been squeezed out of the government, then they will file Chpt 7. General Motors will have long since made off with their share of the plunder before the government and public wake up to the fact they have been duped.
Why hang around the ball park and start screaming two months after both teams have gone home?
Is that pic of Nardelli and Bush a Photoshop job???
the Windsor minivan plant is scheduled to start back up Feb. 2.
I don’t think there will be any outcry, the legilators don’t care, they got the photo op, and for whatever reason the publis is not paying attention outside of michigan.
I hope that the feds change the generous tax preferences buyout/hedge funds like Cerberus presently enjoy and do so in such a way that Cerberus ends up paying back at least 3x what they scammed us for.
The Bush/Nardelli photo is unmodified. Nardelli was the CEO of Home Depot before getting shown the door and Bush made a speech there in December 2003. Have a look:
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0buO88R5ztajg
Has the production suspension affected Chryslers inventory levels?
As I recall, Nardelli left Home Depot with a $210 million severance package. For whatever that’s worth…
“As Chrysler’s sales are in free fall, down 53 percent for December and over 30 percent for the year, it’s hard to take Nardelli’s comment as anything other than a tacit admission that Chrysler is out of business.”
First, I don’t see the connection — kind of like saying that “it’s raining today so soon everything will be underwater.”
Secondly, are you saying that Chrysler will not start up production again in 2009? I don’t see how you mean it any other way, but I’d like to ask you to clarify your position if you are implying they won’t start up again in ’09.
@CommanderFish :
January 11th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
You would all yell at them for making cars, too, so what’s the point?
Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks.
How many 2009 Dodge Ram pickups were made? I see 2008 Rams with cardboard temporary tags, but no 2009 models on the road.
So Chrysler is tacitly saying that they are out of business b/c they are trying to have some semblance of inventory control and instead they should build cars to put in some empty field? I’m a little confused by that one.
Good money after bad.
Cerberus has screwed us (the tax payers) twice, once with GMAC and now with Chrysler.
Thank you Mr Snow and former VP, Mr. Quayle.
Let me make this perfectly clear: the longer Chrysler delays production, the more it’s clear that we’re paying them– and by extension GM– NOT to build cars.
It’s one thing to pay them to build cars that no one wants. It’s another to pay them to not build them.
The “put in a field comment” was somewhat ironic.
The best thing for them to do is declare C11. Part the company out and be done with it. ChryCo’s disappearance would help the remaining domestics and the U.S. car market in general. Giving them $4b to get ready to do this is quasi-criminal IMHO.
It’s kinda like welfare where we pay people not to work when you think about it. The welfare argument often states that people are better off staying at home looking for a job that matches their skills than being underemployed in a part time job. It’s a somewhat similar argument. Nevertheless, I agree that the end result is that GWB stole my money and gave it to a crackhead.
My unscientific survey is that I don’t see that many cars in my area with dealer tags period. Unlike past years, when renewing my tag at the county tax accessor’s office, I didn’t see any couriers from the dealerships picking up tags.
Look for dismal January sales that may even make December 08 look good. Not producing cars may be the prudent course, if your wares aren’t selling.
Big Deal! We all know most of their vehicles are marginal so why make more when there is a 117 day supply?
Besides, they are posturing with the UAW to let them know that they are serious about changing their deal with them; supposedly the longer the brotherhood sits one out, the harder Gettelfinger will have to think about what to do to ensure his long term viability.
I think Chrysler’s displays of electric cars in Detroit is vaporware. They’ll be trotted out again when Chrysler heads back to Congress for a handout.
Then the Ecoweenies and the math-impaired will implore their representatives to save Chrysler.
Sigh. I can only hope that when Chrysler comes back for more money, someone somewhere will be able to ask what they did with the $4B they already got.
The best thing for them to do is declare C11. Part the company out and be done with it.
That would be Chapter 7, of course, and I agree. Daimler mortally wounded Chrysler, and allowing the ever-fading patient to remain on life support for an eternity is unacceptable. The only real mystery here is who will end up with Jeep (and perhaps whether VW will go whole hog into the “domestic” minivan game in Chrysler’s absence). Even those who are convinced that Detroit must be saved “at all costs” should understand that trying to save a privately held automaker with no conceivable chance of future prosperity and very little public support makes no sense.
The public outcry over a $4b loan that defaulted in less than a month, and the accusations that Chyrsler owner Cerberus played Uncle Sugar for a fool, will be deafening. Won’t they?
Not as big as the non-public-outcry over investing money in banks that held onto it instead of lending.
This isn’t to say that one was a good idea while the other wasn’t.
So Chrysler is tacitly saying that they are out of business b/c they are trying to have some semblance of inventory control and instead they should build cars to put in some empty field?
The bigger picture point being made here is that Chrysler has vehicles that it cannot sell, regardless of the quantity of inventory.
The problem cannot be fixed by halting production, halting production only slows the bleeding. The problem can only be fixed by completely revamping the lineup. But they don’t have the time or money for that, so it is as good as saying as they are close to being done. The company needs to either be sold or bailed out again, otherwise it’s going to die.
First, I don’t see the connection — kind of like saying that “it’s raining today so soon everything will be underwater.”
Secondly, are you saying that Chrysler will not start up production again in 2009? I don’t see how you mean it any other way, but I’d like to ask you to clarify your position if you are implying they won’t start up again in ‘09.
RealAutoGuy –
They have a 117 day supply of cars, and they’re not selling any. So, they had 117 day supply of cars last week, and they’re likely to have 117 day supply of cars next week.
GM, Ford, and now Toyota and Honda are all having firesales – on objectively better cars-
What makes you think that Chrysler sales are suddenly going to pick up enough to clear that backlog?
It isn’t raining on Chrysler. It’s raining on the six feet of water that Chrylser is already under.
>>The best thing for them to do is declare C11. Part the company out and be done with it.
That would be Chapter 7, of course, and I agree.>>
Actually, it would not be a Chapter 7 it would be a liquidating 11 where you continue to run the business and sell off the various parts as a going concern. Generally, this provides a much larger return to the creditors than a 7.
Regards,
@ CommanderFish & TheRealAutoGuy :
I will agree and yet again add: “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”
Someone with some skillz needs to make a Firefox script for TTAC, that changes every instance of the work “Chrysler” to “Chrysler: ditd,ditd”
It’s sad really, everyone is dog piling on Chrysler for being trying to be responsible with inventory.
@ Lokki:
“They have a 117 day supply of cars, and they’re not selling any. So, they had 117 day supply of cars last week, and they’re likely to have 117 day supply of cars next week.”
Give “Chrysler: ditd,ditd” some credit… if they had 117 day inventory last week, they would have a 116 day inventory this week… /sarcasm
Actually, it would not be a Chapter 7 it would be a liquidating 11 where you continue to run the business and sell off the various parts as a going concern.
You lost me there at the end.
Not if they sold 7/117th of their cars