I don’t know how many times we’ve pointed out that the blame for GM’s descent into bankruptcy ultimately lies deeply and completely with the automakers’ Board of Bystanders. Yes, GM CEO (and Chairman of the Board) Rick Wagoner drove the artist formerly known as the world’s largest automaker into a wall. But the Board threw him the keys, patted him on the back, walked back inside the house and played Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. To wit: “In an interview with The Detroit News, [BoD member] Kathryn Marinello ruled out the ‘fantasy’ of a prepackaged bankruptcy, which requires advance agreements with stakeholders before a filing, something that has never been attempted on such a large scale.” After reading our own Richard Tilton’s treatise on the matter, I disagree completely. But hey, it sounds reasonable. This however… “She strongly defended GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, calling him ‘the mailman,’ because ‘he always delivers. He is the only person that can keep the automotive industry alive in America,” said Marinello, chairman and CEO of Ceridian Corp., an information services company based in Minneapolis. ‘Not just keep it alive, but make it the technology and green leader.'” That’s incredible.
Category: Quote of the Day
Sr. Farago,
A candidate for Quote of the Day, perhaps. (If nothing else, its context may entertain you.)
“[W]e haven’t told our story very well. I’m not sure the public understands that Detroit is back. We’ve got some high-value, exciting products out there, but I’m not sure that the message has reached a majority of the American public.”
Bob Lutz (or Pete DeLorenzo) this summer? Nope: then GM prexy/COO Robert Stempel, quoted in the October 1989 issue of Car & Driver.
Le plus ça change, le plus c’est la même chose.
–argentla
From Autoblog: “Motor Trend was equally impressed during a recent trip to Chrysler’s Arizona proving grounds where they brought their considerable testing equipment along to add their own cold hard stats to a growing list of platitudes.” [thanks to Steven Wilkinson for the tip]
WNWO (Win-Wo?) reports that Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama made a surprise (for the workers) appearance during the shift change for Chrysler’s Machining Plant in Perrysburg Township, Ohio. Although Obama didn’t make a single speech, Chrysler worker Kevin Brancheau knew what Obama’s visit meant in the great scheme of things. “It shows that he’s really behind us and behind what the UAW and America’s all about, building cars, keeping stuff here and not going overseas.” Hang on; didn’t Barack do the jelly donut thing in Berlin?
From The Detroit News story on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards: The agency reckons it’ll cost automakers $47b to comply with the new regs. Automakers say more. As in please sir, can I have some more? Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? But check this from the NHTSA “There is evidence that manufacturers cannot pass on to buyers the full costs of complying with higher CAFE standards.” Huh? Has the NHTSA been going over Detroit’s books? Or Is the evidence in question the existing Department of Energy’s $25b low-interest loans (the ipso facto answer)? Or has automaker lobbying already had an effect behind the scenes (the “here’s what we want to do but we all know they can’t possibly do it so maybe we should give them the money to do it with” answer)?
“If the Lexus feels like it’s being pushed out of the way by a 130-kilogram NFL lineman on his way to get a fresh libation from a scantily clad Budweiser girl, the Nissan feels like said Budweiser girl is his girlfriend and he smacked you, full-force, upside the head with a telephone book because he thinks you’re hitting on her.” The writer here is not Dan Neil or Jeremy Clarkson. And in case you hadn’t figured it out already (and I know you had), the scribe is Canadian. While the rest of David Booth comparo in the National Post doesn’t ascend to greater heights than this excerpt, his summary’s rhetorical hammer hits the proverbial nail on the metaphorical head. “The IS-F is as sporty as Lexus can make it without sacrificing one iota of luxury; the GT-R is as luxurious as Nissan can engineer it without sacrificing even a bit of performance. The IS-F is a slightly softer competitor to BMW’s M3; the GT-R is a stiffer, more committed alternative to Porsche’s 911 Turbo.” Well, that makes it easy to choose. Porsche Turbo please.
Recent Comments