GM to cut 4,000 jobs and close several facilities in Canada
11-21-2005, 05:08 PM
#21
Originally posted by DWVW:
It is good for some people. The shareholders, the employees that aren't getting cut, the management group, and GM's customers. UNtil the UAW realize that they can't hold these companies hostage with ridiculous demands, this will continue happening until there is no North American auto industry (which I wouldn't be too sad about anyways).
It is good for some people. The shareholders, the employees that aren't getting cut, the management group, and GM's customers. UNtil the UAW realize that they can't hold these companies hostage with ridiculous demands, this will continue happening until there is no North American auto industry (which I wouldn't be too sad about anyways).
I'm anti union for the most part.
There was a place and a time for UAW type unions, but not anymore.
X
11-21-2005, 06:02 PM
#22
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 90
We were thinking of doing up a pool to see which month GM would actually declare Chap. 11. $20 gets you in.......
I am amazed that they have lasted this long, really. Not only has their quality taken a pretty good hit in the past few years, but holy ****, do they really need to have so many bloody lines? They could probably do well by cutting their sku's in half. It looks like it working very nicely for the MOPAR boys, and even Ford looks like they are paring things down a little.
The other boneheaded move that is going to kick GM's *** pretty well is their steadfastedness of carrying almost 27 different types of SUV vehicles. I like Dodge, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, and Ford's way of doing it. Here are the 4 or so different flavours of SUV (well, 1 if you are in Dodge country). Trim it out, load it however, go nuts. Not 2 or 3 in every bloody line. That will kill ya.
No wonder all the offshore companies are killing them....
Gus
PS: Still freaks me out when the fit and finish on a $20,000 Honda is as good, if not better then a $60,000 Caddilac.
I am amazed that they have lasted this long, really. Not only has their quality taken a pretty good hit in the past few years, but holy ****, do they really need to have so many bloody lines? They could probably do well by cutting their sku's in half. It looks like it working very nicely for the MOPAR boys, and even Ford looks like they are paring things down a little.
The other boneheaded move that is going to kick GM's *** pretty well is their steadfastedness of carrying almost 27 different types of SUV vehicles. I like Dodge, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, and Ford's way of doing it. Here are the 4 or so different flavours of SUV (well, 1 if you are in Dodge country). Trim it out, load it however, go nuts. Not 2 or 3 in every bloody line. That will kill ya.
No wonder all the offshore companies are killing them....
Gus
PS: Still freaks me out when the fit and finish on a $20,000 Honda is as good, if not better then a $60,000 Caddilac.
11-21-2005, 06:42 PM
#23
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,423
Originally posted by Prolifik:
gosh Chunk how dumb are u? the tires are not made by GM. if u gonna make a joke atleast make it correctly.
gosh Chunk how dumb are u? the tires are not made by GM. if u gonna make a joke atleast make it correctly.
11-21-2005, 08:29 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why GM's profits really hit the wall
While legacy costs are real, creating all-new cars may pose a bigger problem.
By James E. Harbour / Special to The Detroit News
"GM must look at its product development and the management that drives new product development.
I understand the long-term objective to develop new car and truck products. But creating "all new" vehicles is a major problem. When GM is making all new bodies, chassis, engines, transmissions and components, it means the company in effect is always starting at zero on the learning curve for quality, reliability and productivity. You need only to look at the 11.6 million vehicle recalls in 2004 to fully understand that their recalls were driven by "all new" products that were not totally engineered and tested before they hit the street.
GM's Japanese competitors never introduce "all new" products (except when they are introducing a new product, such as their full size pickup). The Japanese make changes to the chassis and power train in years that body changes are not scheduled, because they realize that "all new" creates the real potential of major quality problems and product recalls.
Yes, General Motors' legacy cost, at minimum, is a huge $4 billion problem that the United Auto Workers and GM management must address or face continued losses in production volume because the more that is spent on health care the less will be available for new products.
But General Motors management also must address its product development process. I understand the long-term need to make a common body architecture, introduce new body platforms and create new manufacturing processes. As these products are developed, though, the subsequent products should not include changes to body, chassis and powertrains all at one time."
That was just a portion of the article. Full Read;
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editori.../A15-129850.htm
interesting article
While legacy costs are real, creating all-new cars may pose a bigger problem.
By James E. Harbour / Special to The Detroit News
"GM must look at its product development and the management that drives new product development.
I understand the long-term objective to develop new car and truck products. But creating "all new" vehicles is a major problem. When GM is making all new bodies, chassis, engines, transmissions and components, it means the company in effect is always starting at zero on the learning curve for quality, reliability and productivity. You need only to look at the 11.6 million vehicle recalls in 2004 to fully understand that their recalls were driven by "all new" products that were not totally engineered and tested before they hit the street.
GM's Japanese competitors never introduce "all new" products (except when they are introducing a new product, such as their full size pickup). The Japanese make changes to the chassis and power train in years that body changes are not scheduled, because they realize that "all new" creates the real potential of major quality problems and product recalls.
Yes, General Motors' legacy cost, at minimum, is a huge $4 billion problem that the United Auto Workers and GM management must address or face continued losses in production volume because the more that is spent on health care the less will be available for new products.
But General Motors management also must address its product development process. I understand the long-term need to make a common body architecture, introduce new body platforms and create new manufacturing processes. As these products are developed, though, the subsequent products should not include changes to body, chassis and powertrains all at one time."
That was just a portion of the article. Full Read;
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editori.../A15-129850.htm
interesting article
11-21-2005, 09:18 PM
#29
2000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,423
Originally posted by ZachCHartwell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR2NR:
Or he'll roundhouse kick you in the kneecap! So there, owned by Chunkmasterflash2k.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MR2NR:
Or he'll roundhouse kick you in the kneecap! So there, owned by Chunkmasterflash2k.
