Last night, Chrysler announced it had broken its deadlock with the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). The press release couldn’t have been more vague if it had simply show a picture of a chocolate pavlova. Here’s the “we won’t show you the money” shot from Tom LaSorda, Vice Chairman and Co-President:
“We are extremely grateful to the CAW leadership and to its hard-working members for their openness in this challenging environment to create a new strategy that will lead this company on a path to success. We also want to recognize the Canadian Federal and Ontario governments for their energy and efforts in helping to move this great Company forward.”
Download this pdf to get the 411 on a new GM-on-the-brink compensation scheme, sent to us by a member of TTAC’s Best and Brightest. The program has been activated by GM’s recent decision to shut down production for nine weeks over the summer. How’s this for reassurance? “SDPA salary will be paid on a semi-monthly basis. The current percentage established by this policy is 75%. Leadership reserves the right to terminate, modify, suspend, increase or decrease salaries and benefits provided under this policy.” Equally worrying (for some), employees getting free vehicles form GM will have to pay for their own fuel during the downtime. “Fuel expenses incurred during the entire paid downtime period are at the expense of the employee (similar to when on vacation or Holiday). All other vehicle expenses (e.g., oil changes, etc.) will continue to be covered in accordance with the PEP/ECVP rules and terms in effect throughout the paid downtime period(s).” Every 3000 miles?
Charles “Chuck” Hurley is the head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). He’s also a totalitarian nanny-stater who wants arbitrary check lanes and a 55 mph national speed limit. Hurley also hearts a .04% Blood Alcohol Content limit, which would make you DUI after one drink. Oh, and he has ties to the red light camera industry. The news arrives via a Washington Times editorial so it’s written from the right. But the facts are facts. Way too busy with an embroidery job for a motorcycle club to write on this but wanted to give you a heads up. It’s been missed by the autoblogosphere.
“I’ve heard of some updated information. It sounds like progress is being made and I hope they’re successful in their discussions together so that Chrysler can avoid liquidation,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters after a meeting of G7 finance ministers and central bankers in Washington. And it’s timing Jim. But. Not. As we know. It. Reuters: “Minutes before Flaherty spoke, the Canadian Auto Workers Union postponed a press conference scheduled for 6 p.m. (1000 GMT), in which it was expected to announce an agreement.” [Thanks to Jules for the link]
Facing its worst financial outlook in more than a decade, General Motors outlined a new product development and sales strategy Thursday, saying that from now on Chevrolet and Cadillac would be the company’s only brands to offer a full lineup of vehicles. Sorry. My bad. That’s a quote lifted from a May 2005 New York Timesstory about GM. It’s only taken The General, what? Four years to almost make it so? Oh, and $20+ billion worth of American taxpayer’s money. Anyway, today’s report of Pontiac’s incipient demise hails from Automotive News [AN, sub], which confirms Edmunds’ Inside Line‘s, uh, inside line. Bloomberg’s in too. GM says no. Well, shudduppayourface. “Contrary to media speculation, General Motors has not announced any changes to its long-term viability plan or to the future status of any of its brands. GM is continuing to review its restructuring plan to go further and faster and best ensure its future success. Additional information will be released as any decisions are finalized.”
“I want to be absolutely clear: we will not spend a single dollar, neither today, nor in the future. Would we like to call this a barter? Well, yes, it is a barter.”
—Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne on negotiations with Chrysler
Move over, Neil Barofsky. The SIGTARP may make the media rounds, but he’s got three trillion worth of TARP to cover. Which is why his recent Quarterly Report to Congress (PDF file available here) wasn’t exactly breathtaking for Chrysler/GM watchers. The Government Accountability Office, on the other hand, has just dropped a report specifically covering the Treasury’s execution of the auto bailout. If you’ve been following TTAC’s coverage through these strange days, the 48-page Summary of Government Efforts and Automakers’ Restructuring to Date (PDF file available here) won’t exactly brim with new insights either. It’s the fact that anyone in the government (sandbagging senators aside) is acknowledging some seriously inconvenient truths.
For me to steal! Check out this putative 2011 Hyundai Sonata! It’s not ginormous! And its Californian curves raise my expectations, even though they (the curves)’re camo-clad! But does it hasten the day when we’ll resort to coining the term “Camccordnata”?
Or, more specifically, what in the NSFW is going on at Suzuki? To this industry observer the last year or so has seemed like one giant shakeout, with the hand of Darwin separating the wheat from the Sebrings. Certain automakers appear to have been grabbed by said hand and dragged screaming down a swirling trough of declining sales, dealerships and revenue. TTAC has foreseen the demise of certain automakers for years, but it started looking like even the marginal firms (as compared to just the downright dysfunctional) were caught in the inexorable downward spiral, never to return. Take Suzuki. The firm lost 60 dealers in ’08 as sales tanked and floorplanning credit dried up. Even as late as last month, Automotive News [sub] reported the demise of major Suzuki dealers as every possible trend seemed to be pulling the plucky brand underwater. And severalTTACcontributors have labeled Suzuki as a “marginal player” doomed to expire at the hand of Car Sales Suckapocalypse. But something happened. Suzuki’s either experiencing the mother of all dead cat bounces, or maybe, just maybe, the hand of Darwin screwed one up.
The Automotive Alliance has released a pdf of its jefe’s statement to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce re: the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009. Dave McCurdy has four words for proponents of the proposed “cap and trade” legislation: “give us the money.” Or, more politically, “We strongly urge the Committee to use revenues generated from the proposed cap and trade system to help fund research, development and implementation of new technologies and upgrading/re-tooling of manufacturing facilities to provide the next generation of green vehicles.” I guess that Department of Energy’s $25 billion retooling fund (remember that one?) just doesn’t scratch that itch, then. But that cash4clunkers deal? Magic! We’ll have one of those, please. Fans of spinspeak and lovers of kow as she is towed will enjoy the Alliance Prez’s concluding remarks . . .
For some reason, The Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes reckons the average Joe will blame the bankers when—sorry “if”—Chrysler goes Tango Uniform. Yes, the money men will take the hit “whether they deserve it or not. I say this not because it would be entirely fair, either, unless ‘fiduciary responsibility’ and the duty of lenders to determine whether a Chrysler allied with Italy’s Fiat SpA would have a shot at survival now are quaint notions that no longer apply. In normal times, lenders are supposed to decide where credit-worthiness ends and recklessness begins. But these are not normal times and bankers, as one of them quipped privately to The Detroit News, ‘are the most hated people in America.'” I know TTAC is guilty of first degree inside baseball, but I’m not feeling that at all. The average American will place the blame squarely on Chrysler for not building competitive products. But it’s interesting that Danny “I can’t get off the fence but I know who’s on either side” Howes would see it that way; it shows that Detroit still can’t take responsibility for its failures. Or admit defeat . . .
In my recent review of the 2010 Mustang GT, I suggested that only a slight lack of power vis-à-vis the competition kept the revised pony from five-star status. The new “Shelby”— air-quoted because the car is really a product of the dedicated men and women of Ford’s unsung SVT division— GT500 is a sharp riposte to that concern. At approximately forty-eight thousand dollars, it’s the only 540-horsepower car available under fifty grand. Or sixty. Or seventy. Or eighty. Or ninety. In fact, if the embattled Viper doesn’t show up in showrooms for 2010, it will be the only car for sale in the country with this kind of power under… the Corvette ZR-1, which costs nearly three times as much. Ah, but is the uber-Stang really worth the premium over the the GT?
The Turtle Wax junket was a learning experience for everyone involved. Look for a branding-minded editorial and a product review in the not-too-distant future. But for now, let’s answer the B&B’s questions about Turtle Wax. Surprisingly, the amount of controversy over their ICE lineup was enough to merit a separate section. As always, The Truth About Cars is here for you, so don’t be shy if you need more info than what I’ve provided.
Harleyflhxi: Will Turtle Wax be coming out with a product to compete with the “Mr. Clean” carwash system?
Sajeev Mehta (SM): Turtle Wax says the Mr. Clean system uses parts and chemicals that aren’t part of Turtle Wax’s core strategy. Turtle Wax also says the Mr. Clean system isn’t doing well in the market; Turtle Wax isn’t feeling any pressure to revise their product technology or strategy.
Schm: What would be the best method for eliminating water spots (without buying a buffer)? I own a black car (I’m a masochist) and I can never seem to get rid of them. Is there a Turtle Wax product that can help me? I own a microfiber towel, and always dab dry; I just can’t seem to get rid of water spots. And I don’t want to spend a fortune.
The New York Times really pisses me off. This is not the first Gray Lady story I’ve read based entirely on a report by a “think tank”—where the reporter somehow fails to mention the organization’s ties to labor unions. In this case, scribe Elisabeth Malcolm is happy to share the results of a study from the “Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that studies economic issues that affect workers.” In this report (download pdf here) EPI economist Robert E. Scott “argues that saving American automakers may instead end up saving — and even creating — Mexican jobs.” And that means that the feds should use the Motown bailout as a lever with which to undermine The Big 2.8’s plans to build cars in non-unionized Mexico. “The conditions Mr. Scott proposes: G.M. and Chrysler (and Ford, if and when it asks for money) should face a limit on their investments in Mexico. The way to do that would be a cap on imports from Mexico as a share of sales. He also suggests a domestic content requirement for American-made cars that would halt the increase in parts imports from Mexico.”
Recent Comments