Detroit: Heal Thy Self

[Newbiewar]

The strangest thing about the crisis in the American auto industry is this: Nobody outside of Detroit seems to care. General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) could go down. Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) could go down. If either company fails, hundreds of thousands of workers could lose their jobs and health benefits. I'm not saying that this is going to happen. I'm just saying that the American people and the leaders in Washington don't seem particularly concerned about the traditional U.S. auto industry. I remember when we used to say that one in six jobs in America was connected to the automobile industry. I remember in 1953 when the head of General Motors, Charles E. Wilson, said, "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and vice versa." I remember when the folding of a small automaker, little Studebaker, was a big story on the Dow Jones ticker, the front page column of the Wall Street Journal and got the journalist who broke the story promoted to executive editor. When I arrived in Washington to head the Forbes bureau there, Ronald Reagan was taking office, and the big story (once the Iranian hostages were released) was the loan guarantee to save Chrysler. People actually cared. This position was not unanimous, but most of those in the Congress wanted to save Chrysler. Congress forced the United Auto Workers to make concessions to Chrysler before giving the company's chairman at the time, Lee Iacocca, his loan guarantees. That deal actually turned out to be hugely profitable to the government, which demanded stock options from Chrysler at the last moment before sealing the deal. I doubt that either General Motors or Ford could engineer a similar government bailout today. These days, most Americans already buy cars made by foreign companies. If you pull out all of Detroit's business with the rent-a-car and fleet buyers, you'll see that true retail sales by Toyota Motor (nyse: TM - news - people ), Honda Motor (nyse: HMC - news - people ) and Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) easily top those of Chevrolet and Ford. And Chrysler is now owned by the Germans. The new auto industry in the U.S. is largely in the South. This part of the business is growing and hiring--and is nonunion. The Japanese, Germans and Koreans have plants in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Toyota is building a plant in Texas. Each of those states has two Senators and House members interested in protecting the foreign factories in their states, not doing favors for Michigan. In the fat years of the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. companies squandered profits on misguided acquisitions and poor product decisions. Too many Americans once owned Detroit cars and believed that dealers and the companies mistreated them when their vehicles had problems. In short, a sizable percentage of the American public is not sympathetic to the plight of the domestic manufacturers. The United Auto Workers union and its members have an image problem, too. Sure, in recent years GM and Ford have made progress in working with unions and in achieving improvements in quality. However, for far too long UAW workers laughed at complaints about quality, and the union did nothing to punish workers who failed to perform. In terms of pay, pensions and health care, UAW workers are better off than most Americans in private industry. How about the U.S. Government? Well, the Treasury Department doesn't care if U.S. car companies go out of business and workers lose their jobs. The Treasury's big job right now is financing the nation's deficit, and they do it by selling bonds to the Chinese and Japanese. The Asians get that money with profits from their sales and exports to America. The Defense Department is the other important agency in Washington. Hey, if people are unemployed, maybe it will be easier to fill the army's ranks. Like the State Department, Defense does not want the Asians angry with us because of trade. The attitude is that we need them on our side militarily, so let them have their way with trade. Detroit executives wonder why Washington has not done anything for 40 years about unfair exchange rates that make Asian products exceptionally low priced here. Simply put, relations with Japan, China and Korea are more important that some shut factories in the rust belt. Rick Wagoner, the boss of General Motors, in particular, complains about health care costs. He seems to want a national health care system to bail out his company. Frankly, it is difficult to see America accepting what we used to call "socialized medicine" just so GM and its workers can continue to have a better medical plan than the rest of us. Maybe it is time for the companies to stop their dividends. Maybe it is time for the union to tell its members how bad things are. And maybe it is time for the Governor of Michigan to understand why people don't want to build in her state. Face up to it Detroit: America doesn't care. You have to save yourselves.

[G. David Felt]

:( Sad but I totally Agree with you. While I am a Proud White American who lives in Seattle washington. My wife is from Korea, my education I got in Japan. Yet I believe we support and keep the profits here in this country for the betterment of all. My wife is a big USA only person, she agree's and loves driving her suburban or Caddy CTS! :D Yet her sister is what ailes us, Her sister will only buy Honda due to them being Superior autos that outlast anything America can Build. No matter what she reads about recall's, or her own grip's about broken issues in her Civic, she still say's it is superior to anything the US makes. I asked her what she has to back up this superior Claim and she points to the Auto Mag's and the youth market that has all those cool RIce burners buzzing around Seattle. Her Friends that also say the same thing but will quickly bad mouth a US auto even if they have never owned one. I took her for a ride in our Caddy and while she loved it, thought it was nice. She said she would not trade in her Honda as it was superior to the caddy. :huh: Like what dope are these younger people smoking. GM and Ford will have to save themselves and they will have to do it with changes from top down including the Marketing companies they use to get the message out and getting Auto's that drive passion. Right now Passion is missing from allot of Ford and GM auto's. For me, I just hope I can retire my suburban once one is available with the Duramax Diesel. :P

[Clownzilla]

This story gets to the core of the problem! The end is so true too. GM will have to save themselves. I know I sound like a broken record, but GM is going to have to move out of the USA to survive. This is becoming more like a fact every day!

[drew770]

Where are our fearless politicians that are suppose to be doing the work of the American people???? How can any of our elected officals ask for our votes while another plant is closing in their district? Granted politicians can't force Americans to buy Fords or Chevy's but they could level the playing field with the Asians. But that is to much to ask from our corrupt government!

[hyperv6]

How long till we see the auto industry do what the TV and electronics people and many other industries have done? If the Unions don't cave our Chevys, Caddys and Pick up's will be coming from Plants in Shanghi. If the American workers won't work for less someone else will. The Design it here build it there will apply to our auto industry in the future. That will be a very sad day! To be competitive on a world basis there is not going to bre company loyalty to any workers if the company wants to survive. Also they can complain what CRO's are paid but even if they were paid $1 it would not change much as their pay is only a drop in a very large bucket.

[razoredge]

did anyone read that and absorb the reality of the message ? It right full of "whats wrong with this picture ?" theres going to be huge populations in our country without jobs when all this BS comes to a head and Im not just talking about the auto industry. Its like everyone is blind. those Asians arent stupid. You only have to grease the hands of a few to destroy the economy of millions.

[The O.C.]

did anyone read that and absorb the reality of the message ? It right full of "whats wrong with this picture ?" theres going to be huge populations in our country without jobs when all this BS comes to a head and Im not just talking about the auto industry. Its like everyone is blind.

those Asians arent stupid. You only have to grease the hands of a few to destroy the economy of millions.

[post="68183"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I've said this many times before and I'll say it again....because Flint's story hits the nail on the head....

For 95% of the population of this country, the failure of GM or Ford will not impact them one single bit.

This country has spent the last 30 years diversifying way too much.....and we will be better because of it.

I've heard numbers that say around 1% (2.91 million out of 291 million people) are directly or indirectly associated with the automotive industry in this country. AND a growing number of those are associated with the "new" auto industry with the imports in the south....leaving a shrinking populace threatened by the decline of "Detroit."

Flint's right.....and GM better realize it. People (in general) really DON'T care if Detroit fails. And it's not because they are heartless or unsympathetic, it's just because "Detroit" holds a literal fraction of the importance it held 50 years ago.

[The O.C.]

.....another interesting point...... Out of all my friends here in southern California that are NOT involved in the auto industry.....I'll guarantee you that not a single ONE knows anything about Delphi, their bankruptcy, and the significance of that......unless they just happened to catch a brief report about it on TV or in the newspaper. AND if they did catch the Delphi news story, you can bet it didn't hit a single chord of importance with them.

[balthazar]

The sense of community is as extinct as the Brontosaurus. How can anyone see the Big Picture when the screens on their video iPods are only 2" x 2"?

[capriceman]

Are you people retarted????? Ill put a picture into your mind that you dont think about. Trickle down effect. I guy that works a GM goes to a best buy and buys a 42 inch tv and surround sound and leaves in his truck (because he can afford it with out going in to debt). You dont see what went on there did you! Best buy makes money from peole buying stuff right. If the "middle class" guy that worked at GM dissapears. This will happen, best buy's sales get fewer and become in "giving credit hell". meaning that the people now buying there stuff don't have enough money to pay them off. So in turn that best buy goes in the red then shuts down. The people that maintain the place like heating and cooling lose there acount there. less money since they lost that chain. They go out of bussiness. more unemployeed people. lets face it, unless you own or are very high in the ladder at your job your not getting $80,000 and benifits to hang doors on a car for 8 hours a day. In detroit that exact senerio is happening right now. The guy that worked on heating and cooling for bestbuy doesnt have the money now so he doesnt get pizza on fridays now and that pizza business loses money and then shuts down. For real example try a city in mid michigan. 70% of the city worked at a Paper mill. The paper mill shut down since it lost its major acoount with a newspaper company. The 70% of the town didn't have money so every thing went chap. 11 from the Mcdonalds to to mejiers. It wont happen that fast but if you take michigans number one job source the entire state will crumble. And will take out other states as well. Out in Arizona Was A Bolt making bussines that had 123,000 full time workers. when Ford Canceled there contract 123,000 people lost there jobs. AND MORE THAN 5% WILL IMPACT FROM GM OR FORD CLOSING. O.C. (Even CD/BP might hurt since he wont have new cars to take pictures of and sell)

[razoredge]

OC , you did not notice or make note of what I was said. "Im not just talking about the auto industry" or at least you ignored it in your view of the world from the suburbs of California. Fortunantly the population is far more diverse. I find your 5% estimates of the populations work needs interesting but that is about all it is, a interesting view "from the top?". So many like to use the crutch "so what, we lost 30,000 (middle class) jobs, but we gained 20,000 (minimum wage jobs) Sorry but Im not one of them, I will express my views on the need for a diverse supply of jobs and interests in this country........that pay good money. I will not get involved in conversations regarding employment "in the south"

[G. David Felt]

Are you people retarted?????
Ill put a picture into your mind that you dont think about.

Trickle down effect.

I guy that works a GM goes to a best buy and buys a 42 inch tv and surround sound and leaves in his truck (because he can afford it with out going in to debt).

You dont see what went on there did you!

Best buy makes money from peole buying stuff right. If the "middle class" guy that worked at GM dissapears. This will happen, best buy's sales get fewer and become in "giving credit hell". meaning that the people now buying there stuff don't have enough money to pay them off. So in turn that best buy goes in the red then shuts down. The people that maintain the place like heating and cooling lose there acount there. less money since they lost that chain. They go out of bussiness. more unemployeed people.

lets face it, unless you own or are very high in the ladder at your job your not getting $80,000 and benifits to hang doors on a car for 8 hours a day.

In detroit that exact senerio is happening right now.

The guy that worked on heating and cooling for bestbuy doesnt have the money now so he doesnt get pizza on fridays now and that pizza business loses money and then shuts down.

For real example try a city in mid michigan. 70% of the city worked at a Paper mill. The paper mill shut down since it lost its major acoount with a newspaper company. The 70% of the town didn't have money so every thing went chap. 11 from the Mcdonalds to to mejiers.

It wont happen that fast but if you take michigans number one job source the entire state will crumble. And will take out other states as well.

Out in Arizona Was A Bolt making bussines that had 123,000 full time workers. when Ford Canceled there contract 123,000 people lost there jobs.

AND MORE THAN 5% WILL IMPACT FROM GM OR FORD CLOSING. O.C.

(Even CD/BP might hurt since he wont have new cars to take pictures of and sell)

[post="68228"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

WRONG, you are WRONG.

Reality Check in this diverse WTO, yes there will be a few states hurt by GM or Ford going out of business, but over all most people will only see it as a small 1/100th of GDP or Gross Domestic Product.

I know this as Seattle my City was Dependant on Boeing and Logging and with every Boom came a bust later on. On I5 there was a famous sign "The last person leaving Seattle Turn out the lights!"

Due to Diversification, this state only rely's on the Logging industry and the airplane industry for 5% of it's employement. Yes it would hurt if 100% of those two business closed down, but the state would still survive. People found other training and jobs to live on.

Same with Michigan, if GM and FORD close, the people who want a better life will get new training and move to find a job that supports their family. Only those that expect others, a company or government to give something to them will really be hurt. UAW is like this, they expect or feel a job, benefits, reitrement is owed to them.

Nothing is owed to anyone, we make of our life what we put into it.

I for one could care less if FORD survives, parts would be bought up by other companies or taken over like Chrysler, but I do hope GM wakes up and realizes that they will have to fight to survive, no one really cares except for some workers and those of us that like GM Products. We have to fight and make a reason to survive.

[regfootball]

HOLY F*CK. now THAT'S BLUNT TRUTH.

I think he's hit it 100% on the head here.

"People (in general) really DON'T care if Detroit fails"

I think that those words from OC are the root of the whole thing. I think people are sympathetic to support American companies, but they feel that the car companies in America are far too centralized in Michigan and between that and the general hatred our society harbors towards the spoils that union labor affords in comparison to their own compensations.....2+2=I don't give a flying **** if your little local industry goes down.

Now, what folks DON'T know and SHOULD know is that many of the automakers factories are outside of Detroit.

GM and Ford could build leading edge products that are totally reliable and the public will still blow them off, because they find GM and Ford as business operations to lack being in step with the real world. Having the unions involved damages the perception tenfold.

I wish union folks really knew how much contempt the general US public harbors towards unions these days. They are not the only cause of the auto industry slide, but the union factor generates most of the negative public opinion towards the industry.

Sadly, this has all got to hit rock bottom for the solutions to arise and get better.

What really bothers me about all of this is how much we are allowing the Asians to infiltrate our economic structure. Blame your politicans and liberals for that.

I do think there are lots of selfish folks out there who should at least CONSIDER the economic impact of satisfying their urge to buy a toyota.

The strangest thing about the crisis in the American auto industry is this: Nobody outside of Detroit seems to care.

General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) could go down. Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) could go down. If either company fails, hundreds of thousands of workers could lose their jobs and health benefits. I'm not saying that this is going to happen. I'm just saying that the American people and the leaders in Washington don't seem particularly concerned about the traditional U.S. auto industry.

I remember when we used to say that one in six jobs in America was connected to the automobile industry.

I remember in 1953 when the head of General Motors, Charles E. Wilson, said, "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and vice versa."

I remember when the folding of a small automaker, little Studebaker, was a big story on the Dow Jones ticker, the front page column of the Wall Street Journal and got the journalist who broke the story promoted to executive editor.

When I arrived in Washington to head the Forbes bureau there, Ronald Reagan was taking office, and the big story (once the Iranian hostages were released) was the loan guarantee to save Chrysler. People actually cared. This position was not unanimous, but most of those in the Congress wanted to save Chrysler.

Congress forced the United Auto Workers to make concessions to Chrysler before giving the company's chairman at the time, Lee Iacocca, his loan guarantees. That deal actually turned out to be hugely profitable to the government, which demanded stock options from Chrysler at the last moment before sealing the deal.

I doubt that either General Motors or Ford could engineer a similar government bailout today.

These days, most Americans already buy cars made by foreign companies. If you pull out all of Detroit's business with the rent-a-car and fleet buyers, you'll see that true retail sales by Toyota Motor (nyse: TM - news - people ), Honda Motor (nyse: HMC - news - people ) and Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) easily top those of Chevrolet and Ford. And Chrysler is now owned by the Germans.

The new auto industry in the U.S. is largely in the South. This part of the business is growing and hiring--and is nonunion. The Japanese, Germans and Koreans have plants in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Toyota is building a plant in Texas. Each of those states has two Senators and House members interested in protecting the foreign factories in their states, not doing favors for Michigan.

In the fat years of the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. companies squandered profits on misguided acquisitions and poor product decisions. Too many Americans once owned Detroit cars and believed that dealers and the companies mistreated them when their vehicles had problems. In short, a sizable percentage of the American public is not sympathetic to the plight of the domestic manufacturers.

The United Auto Workers union and its members have an image problem, too. Sure, in recent years GM and Ford have made progress in working with unions and in achieving improvements in quality. However, for far too long UAW workers laughed at complaints about quality, and the union did nothing to punish workers who failed to perform. In terms of pay, pensions and health care, UAW workers are better off than most Americans in private industry.

How about the U.S. Government? Well, the Treasury Department doesn't care if U.S. car companies go out of business and workers lose their jobs. The Treasury's big job right now is financing the nation's deficit, and they do it by selling bonds to the Chinese and Japanese. The Asians get that money with profits from their sales and exports to America.

The Defense Department is the other important agency in Washington. Hey, if people are unemployed, maybe it will be easier to fill the army's ranks. Like the State Department, Defense does not want the Asians angry with us because of trade. The attitude is that we need them on our side militarily, so let them have their way with trade.

Detroit executives wonder why Washington has not done anything for 40 years about unfair exchange rates that make Asian products exceptionally low priced here. Simply put, relations with Japan, China and Korea are more important that some shut factories in the rust belt. Rick Wagoner, the boss of General Motors, in particular, complains about health care costs. He seems to want a national health care system to bail out his company. Frankly, it is difficult to see America accepting what we used to call "socialized medicine" just so GM and its workers can continue to have a better medical plan than the rest of us.

Maybe it is time for the companies to stop their dividends. Maybe it is time for the union to tell its members how bad things are. And maybe it is time for the Governor of Michigan to understand why people don't want to build in her state.

Face up to it Detroit: America doesn't care. You have to save yourselves.

[post="68111"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Edited January 6, 2006 by regfootball

[Newbiewar]

I've said this many times before and I'll say it again....because Flint's story hits the nail on the head....

For 95% of the population of this country, the failure of GM or Ford will not impact them one single bit.

This country has spent the last 30 years diversifying way too much.....and we will be better because of it.

I've heard numbers that say around 1% (2.91 million out of 291 million people) are directly or indirectly associated with the automotive industry in this country.  AND a growing number of those are associated with the "new" auto industry with the imports in the south....leaving a shrinking populace threatened by the decline of "Detroit."

Flint's right.....and GM better realize it.  People (in general) really DON'T care if Detroit fails.  And it's not because they are heartless or unsympathetic, it's just because "Detroit" holds a literal fraction of the importance it held 50 years ago.

[post="68189"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

its accually about 10% of indirectly and directly affected by the Automotive industry... you must think from everything from suppliers, like delphi, to GM factory workers, to car salesman, to advertisement, management, towing companies, repair shops, body shops, lube shops, car washes, parts stores, its a lot of people...

remember when GM went on strike a few years back...

Stagflation is the economic term for the occurrence of lowered GDP growth and a higher price level. Did this occur? Indeed it did. The strike, which occurred in the months of June and July, contributed to the lowest GDP growth in over 3 years. The GDP growth figure for the second quarter of 1998 (April, May, June) was 1.8% compared to 5.5% in the first quarter of 1998 and 4.0% in the second quarter of 1997. Some of this slowdown in growth was a result of the Asian crisis. Yet the Commerce Department, when releasing the data on economic growth, said the GM strike took at least a full percentage point from GDP growth (Indianapolis Star, 1998). Still, it is hard to determine the exact effect either the GM strike or the Asian economic crisis had on the U.S. economy. However, some post-strike data gives us some insight into the effect the GM strike. When the strikes ended, GM kicked up their production level. This led to the biggest
surge in industrial output in more than 14 years during the month of August (Investor’s Business Daily, 1998).

This strike was for only 8 weeks... and it had "at least 1 full percentage point" to the GDP... and thats only GM, not Delphi(well i surmise in 98 delphi was still GM) it was not all of GM's suppliers, it was not GM's management or marketing, salespeople...

if GM fails... it will be a bad day... with GM paying over 1 million people pensions or salaries, its hard to imagine, what it would be like for everything else gm does for this country to fall apart. and please dont act like GM doesnt do anything, GM always steps up to the plate and donates, GM always allocates money when money is needed, if there is a way or a will, GM helps america where it can. Edited January 6, 2006 by Newbiewar

[Ultra Magnus]

Nothing is owed to anyone, we make of our life what we put into it.

[post="68508"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

AMEN!!! The UAW really needs to wake up.

[The O.C.]

I find it hard to believe the 10% figure....that's 29.1 million people. I don't see that many directly and indirectly associated with the auto industry. My 1% figure came from someone on this site....but I don't remember who.... My whole point wasn't to be unsympathetic to any auto workers that might be affected by a GM or Ford disaster....but to point out the fact that we (this country) have been down this road times before.....and we've bounced back stronger each time... Look at the steel industry..... Or the defense/military industry (which hit southern California and San Diego pretty hard back in the 80's)..... Or the oil industry that affected Oklahoma and parts of Texas back in the 70's..... Or the aforementioned Boeing issues in Washington State.....

[Flybrian]

Or the aforementioned Boeing issues in Washington State.....

[post="68648"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm so glad the dishonesty of Boeing government contracts was revealed and they're now being outsold by Airbus, which is the pinnacle of true lassiez faire free enterprise and completely superior product. One phrase: CFIT.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The strangest thing about the crisis in the American auto industry is this: Nobody outside of Detroit seems to care.

BINGO!!! He nailed it!! And that's why GM and Ford will receive NO help... In fact, if anything I expect the imports get an even WARMER welcome and be touted as our saviour of labor.

WOW!!! What a GREAT article!!!!

Finally, someone with a clear take on reality... What more can I say???

GM and Ford lost the big $$$ and now, not surprisingly in america, no one cares if they exist or not. And add to that the anti-domestic spiel that is being beaten into more and more heads everyday and we have ourselves a situation for the end of an era.

At least we can still collect classic american cars.

[regfootball]

BINGO!!!  He nailed it!! And that's why GM and Ford will receive NO help... In fact, if anything I expect the imports get an even WARMER welcome and be touted as our saviour of labor.

WOW!!! What a GREAT article!!!!

Finally, someone with a clear take on reality... What more can I say???

GM and Ford lost the big $$$ and now, not surprisingly in america, no one cares if they exist or not. And add to that the anti-domestic spiel that is being beaten into more and more heads everyday and we have ourselves a situation for the end of an era.

At least we can still collect classic american cars.

[post="71579"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

GM and ford ned to recognize this and reposition the public opinion to recognize that they provide jobs all across the country, and it wouldn't hurt if they decentralized to ther states as well so more of the US could benefit as opposed to just Michigan.

[Shantanu]

If Seattle is so great why did Boeing leave? It is now headquartered in the "rust-belt" city of Chicago. ^_^

[The O.C.]

If Seattle is so great why did Boeing leave?  It is now headquartered in the "rust-belt" city of Chicago. ^_^

[post="73864"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Boeing's airplane division is still headquartered in Seattle.....it was the parent company that moved to Chicago......and I'm not sure why, except maybe that they wanted a more central location (the other choices up for contention were Denver and Dallas.)

Boeing still has a large presence in southern California as well (defense-related.)

[sciguy_0504]

I'm so glad the dishonesty of Boeing government contracts was revealed and they're now being outsold by Airbus, which is the pinnacle of true lassiez faire free enterprise and completely superior product. One phrase: CFIT.

[post="68650"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think you need to find out how Airbus is funded. It may be lassiez faire but it's the European version of lassiez faire. We're talking tons of subsidies and loans to finance the company. After all, a number of countries started Airbus, it wasn't started by a group of entrepreneurs. I'm sure Boeing gets some government help, too, especially in the face of Airbus receiving it.

Airbus' "superior" product is not that superior. The Boeing 777 costs less to run and is much more preferred among long-haul travellers than its Airbus counterpart. The new Boeing 787 really caught Airbus off-guard with its combination of specs (long range, high capacity, 20% less fuel) and the technology used to produce it. It's the fastest selling jet in history and allowed Boeing to gain more orders than Airbus in 2005 (over 1,000). Airbus is dumping so much money into the overweight and logistical nightmare A380 that it had to slap some new wings and tail on an existing airframe in order to compete. The Boeing 737 is the world's best selling jet and is preferred over its Airbus competitor by all but European airlines.

The business model of both companies couldn't be any more different. Airbus believes people want to fly from major city to major city (hub and spoke system, layovers) with hundreds of other people on the same plane, dealing with the requisite baggage and embarking/disembarking headaches that accompany large aircraft like the A380. Boeing thinks people want to fly from their departure point directly to their destination without layovers on a midsize plane. Ask any industry rep and they'll tell you the hub and spoke system used by the major airlines since the start of jet travel is quickly falling out of favor due to traveller preference and airport congestion.

Not to write a book on the subject, just to explain. I just think it's kind of weird that you support foreign aircraft manufacturers but not foreign car manufacturers, especially since Boeing and Airbus' parent company EADS do more than just make commercial aircraft.

[Flybrian]

Sciguy, I must say, I laughed at that simply because you said more or less what I've always thought. :P Needless to say, you're 100% correct in both your comments and my criticism of Airbus/EADS. My comment was sarcastic in light of the huge irony surrounding the fact that Boeing gets called out with favorable government deals, something EADS and Airbus gets all the time. Airbus criticizes Boeing for lucrative NASA and DoD contracts yet EADS is a major cornerstone of the European Space Agency and builds the majority of the European military air inventory through Airbus, Eurocopter, and its Eurofighter consortiums. Airbus gets tremendous help from the launch aid they recieve that helps recover the costs involved in ramping up a new aircraft. American contractors typically don't recieve direct launch aid. Simple facts: there are about 3,850 Airbus jets in service vs. over 4,000 737s. Even the 2005 'outperformace' by Airbus is misleading has Boeing still had more firm orders that year (825 vs 687). Many, many airlines operate all-Boeing fleets and they are highly regarded as being superior aircraft by airline captains. Interestingly, Japan is Boeing-dominated with over 90% of the nation's jetliner fleet being Boeing aircraft. Airbus has an extrodinarily difficult time in that market (in 2005, they recieved one firm order for one freighter) and Japan's two major airlines (JAL and ANA) operate a handful of older Airbus jets. In fact, ANA is transitioning to an all-Boeing fleet. Also, in a nation dominated by shorter-range, high capacity jets (747SPs), its very odd that not one order or option has been placed by any Japanese air carrier for the A380. In any case, my loyalty is with Boeing. To clarify any misconceptions. ;)

[Shantanu]

Japan is a captive market for Boeing products. Do you have any idea how many U.S. dollars the Japanese hold from their massive trade surpluses going back several decades? Plus it helps ease some of the political trade friction when they buy Boeings.

[Robert Hall]

Boeing's airplane division is still headquartered in Seattle.....it was the parent company that moved to Chicago......and I'm not sure why, except maybe that they wanted a more central location (the other choices up for contention were Denver and Dallas.)

Boeing still has a large presence in southern California as well (defense-related.)

[post="74240"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They have some defense stuff (satellites, etc) going on in Colorado Springs also...I have a friend that works for Boeing down there...

[andy82471]

I have flown in both the Airbus A340 and the Boeing 777 and I can say that the 777 is a much better plane than the A340. Since I flew in Coach, my impression is solely based on the Coach (economy class) class. The 777 felt much more spacious and comfortable compared to the 340 which felt cramped with very little legroom. The 777 also handles turbulance a lot better than the 340, at least that was my experience. But one disadvantage of the 777 is that it has only two engine compared to the 340's four. That limits the route the 777 can fly because it has to meet ETOPS ( extended twin engine operating services) rule. Having four engine also gives you a bigger safety margin in case of engine failure.

[andy82471]

Boeing 777




Airbus A340

Edited January 16, 2006 by andy82471

[Robert Hall]

I have flown in both the Airbus A340 and the Boeing 777 and I can say that the 777 is a much better plane than the A340. Since I flew in Coach, my impression is solely based on the Coach (economy class) class. The 777 felt much more spacious and comfortable compared to the 340 which felt cramped with very little legroom. The 777 also handles turbulance a lot better than the 340, at least that was my experience. But one disadvantage of the 777 is that it has only two engine compared to the 340's four. That limits the route the 777 can fly because it has to meet ETOPS ( extended twin engine operating services) rule. Having four engine also gives you a bigger safety margin in case of engine failure.

[post="74429"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I like the 777 also...it felt more spacious and seemed quieter than a 747... I've flown in both across the pond (British Airways) in coach...

I did business class once on a BA 777..that was probably the most comfortable I've been on a big plane before..

[lakefire]

I would agree. No one likes detroit. I don't understand why someone would want to move to detroit to live.

[Robert Hall]

I would agree.  No one likes detroit.  I don't understand why someone would want to move to detroit to live.

Some of the suburbs and surrounding areas are pretty nice, though... I lived out in Ann Arbor for 3 years when I was in grad school....a really nice town, and not just a college town. The lousy winters and economy keeps me from considering moving back there, though.

[sciguy_0504]

Sciguy, I must say, I laughed at that simply because you said more or less what I've always thought. :P Needless to say, you're 100% correct in both your comments and my criticism of Airbus/EADS.

My comment was sarcastic in light of the huge irony surrounding the fact that Boeing gets called out with favorable government deals, something EADS and Airbus gets all the time. Airbus criticizes Boeing for lucrative NASA and DoD contracts yet EADS is a major cornerstone of the European Space Agency and builds the majority of the European military air inventory through Airbus, Eurocopter, and its Eurofighter consortiums. Airbus gets tremendous help from the launch aid they recieve that helps recover the costs involved in ramping up a new aircraft. American contractors typically don't recieve direct launch aid.

Simple facts: there are about 3,850 Airbus jets in service vs. over 4,000 737s. Even the 2005 'outperformace' by Airbus is misleading has Boeing still had more firm orders that year (825 vs 687). Many, many airlines operate all-Boeing fleets and they are highly regarded as being superior aircraft by airline captains.

Interestingly, Japan is Boeing-dominated with over 90% of the nation's jetliner fleet being Boeing aircraft. Airbus has an extrodinarily difficult time in that market (in 2005, they recieved one firm order for one freighter) and Japan's two major airlines (JAL and ANA) operate a handful of older Airbus jets. In fact, ANA is transitioning to an all-Boeing fleet. Also, in a nation dominated by shorter-range, high capacity jets (747SPs), its very odd that not one order or option has been placed by any Japanese air carrier for the A380.

In any case, my loyalty is with Boeing. To clarify any misconceptions. ;)

[post="74342"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Gotcha. I honestly didn't know whether or not you were being serious after I reread your post after posting mine. Glad to hear it.

[The O.C.]

I have flown in both the Airbus A340 and the Boeing 777 and I can say that the 777 is a much better plane than the A340. Since I flew in Coach, my impression is solely based on the Coach (economy class) class. The 777 felt much more spacious and comfortable compared to the 340 which felt cramped with very little legroom. The 777 also handles turbulance a lot better than the 340, at least that was my experience. But one disadvantage of the 777 is that it has only two engine compared to the 340's four. That limits the route the 777 can fly because it has to meet ETOPS ( extended twin engine operating services) rule. Having four engine also gives you a bigger safety margin in case of engine failure.

[post="74429"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm a big Triple-7 fan as well.....but before you write off the A340.....remember that the airlines themselves dictate the interior-layout specs with regards to seat-pitch (basically room between your seat and the seat in front of you.)

SO....high-capacity airlines might dictate a lower seat-pitch number so they can squeeze in a few extra seats....whereas a company that wants to improve customer satisfaction might decide to forego a few extra revenue-producing seats in order to INCREASE seat-pitch for more comfort (like American Airlines did a few years ago.)

Other than perceived "safety-factor" the Triple-7's two engine configuration no longer limits its range. The new (soon-to-be-introduced) 777-200LR just set a world-record for a nonstop flight (not sure the range, it was in my Airways mag that I threw out already) "backwards" from London to Hong Kong (via the Atlantic, then USA, then Pacific.)

When the production 777-200LR starts flying, it will most likely rival Airbus' two longest-range flights....utilizing an A340-500 from New York and Los Angeles to Singapore.

[The O.C.]

Some of the suburbs and surrounding areas are pretty nice, though... I lived out in Ann Arbor for 3 years when I was in grad school....a really nice town, and not just a college town. The lousy winters and economy keeps me from considering moving back there, though.

[post="74450"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah....Ann Arbor is cool.....but that's the ONLY area I'd even remotely consider living.

I don't even find Detroit's upscale suburbs all that nice even......like I spent some time in the Birmingham/Bloomfield Hills area.....and there were some nice shops and stuff in Birmingham, and sure there are nice houses, but the whole area (supposedly one of Detroit's most upscale) had a tired, old, and dated feel to the streets, stores, the area in general. Other areas like Troy, Rochester Hills, etc., were similar.

There are middle-class suburbs in southern California that have a much nicer feel, look, and appearance.

When I lived in Philadelphia, on the east coast, there were some really nice upscale suburbs that showed how to make old feel expensive, luxurious, and genteel.....not just "old."

[sciguy_0504]

Yeah....Ann Arbor is cool.....but that's the ONLY area I'd even remotely consider living.

I don't even find Detroit's upscale suburbs all that nice even......like I spent some time in the Birmingham/Bloomfield Hills area.....and there were some nice shops and stuff in Birmingham, and sure there are nice houses, but the whole area (supposedly one of Detroit's most upscale) had a tired, old, and dated feel to the streets, stores, the area in general.  Other areas like Troy, Rochester Hills, etc., were similar.

There are middle-class suburbs in southern California that have a much nicer feel, look, and appearance.

When I lived in Philadelphia, on the east coast, there were some really nice upscale suburbs that showed how to make old feel expensive, luxurious, and genteel.....not just "old."

[post="74994"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Like New Hope and Newtown?

[The O.C.]

Like New Hope and Newtown?

[post="74996"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:AH-HA_wink:

Of course.....

But there are some towns like many of them on the Main Line.....that were really pretty.....and you KNEW they were upscale.

[sciguy_0504]

The Main Line...yep, I forgot about that.

[Robert Hall]

Yeah....Ann Arbor is cool.....but that's the ONLY area I'd even remotely consider living.

I don't even find Detroit's upscale suburbs all that nice even......like I spent some time in the Birmingham/Bloomfield Hills area.....and there were some nice shops and stuff in Birmingham, and sure there are nice houses, but the whole area (supposedly one of Detroit's most upscale) had a tired, old, and dated feel to the streets, stores, the area in general.  Other areas like Troy, Rochester Hills, etc., were similar.

Yes, I know what you mean..I've found in general the Detroit area (and many other places in the Midwest) have a 'best days are behind it', dying feel to them.. it seems their glory days are long past, and they are in the downward spiral.

Totally different feel from cities in the west, metro areas I've lived in like Denver and Phoenix have experienced growth booms for the last decade or more and seem fresh and new feeling overall... Edited January 16, 2006 by moltar

[The O.C.]

Yeah and the western suburbs are not ALL cookie-cutter master-planned cities.... SoCal suburbs like San Marino, (close to Pasadena,) Bel Aire (close to Beverly Hills,) and beach 'burbs like Laguna Beach, Redondo Beach, and Manhattan Beach are chock full of character. Unfortunately, Aliso Viejo, where I live in The O.C., is total master-planned with tons of cookie-cutter subdivisions. Although it IS expensive here...and manages to be quite beautiful....built up on a hill, perfectly groomed and landscaped, wide, six-lane boulevards, and a "Towne Center" with lots of restaurants and bars, etc. Denver.....Boulder.....young but upscale and trendy. Phoenix......Old Towne Scottsdale.....

[bcarr22]

If either Ford or GM end up on the brink of the abyss, a foreign manufacture will buy them out. You know both companies have too much history and market share to just go away. Someone is going to partner/merge/buyout the failing company and restructure. Who will it be? Renault? Citroen? Maybe Fiat will truly have the last laugh and buy GM! Up to now, Honda and Toyota have steered clear of acquisition fever. Toyota-General? Honda-Ford? Where most people see cataclysmic failure, some see opportunity. Just my $.02. BC

[andy82471]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Sorry link doesnt work.

Airbus still No.1 in the large commerical air market but Boeing sold more larger aircraft than AB.

PARIS - A December sales surge kept Airbus on top of the global passenger jet market in 2005, the company said Tuesday — bettering Boeing Co.'s orders and deliveries.

ADVERTISEMENT



But Airbus conceded it had lost ground to Boeing in the market for larger, more profitable planes and said it plans to review its A340 jet in the wake of disappointing sales.

Airbus announced 1,055 net orders for 2005, beating its U.S. rival's 1,002, and delivered 378 airliners to Boeing's 290. Excluding cancellations, the Airbus tally came to 1,111 orders, the largest number ever booked either side of the Atlantic.

The Airbus figures defied predictions that the European plane maker would lose the lead in orders it took from Boeing in 2001, two years before pulling ahead on deliveries. In the 11 months to Nov. 30, Airbus had reported 687 firm orders.

"We had a very busy December," Airbus Chief Executive Gustav Humbert said at a briefing before Tuesday's announcement.

The final figures include a late surge of order confirmations for single-aisle A320 models. China bought 150 of the jets during a visit to Paris last month by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao — upstaging a Boeing deal the previous month to sell 70 737s to China.

In longer-range, wide-bodied planes, however, it is Airbus that has struggled to keep up. Boeing sold 455 such jets last year, representing 44 percent of its total orders. Airbus took orders for 193 of the larger planes, or 17 percent of its total — with the rest made up of single-aisle planes that are typically less profitable.

As a result, Boeing won the larger share of the overall market by order value in 2005, Humbert said. "As far as we see it, Boeing has 55 percent in value and we have 45 percent in value, although we are leading in the number of aircraft," he said.

Humbert also indicated that the A340 is under review. The four-engine jet — which flies 380 passengers up to 7,500 nautical miles in the largest of its three versions — attracted only 15 firm orders in 2005. Boeing won 154 orders for its competing twin-engined 777 planes.

"We can and will do better in the long-range field," Humbert said, without specifying what changes were under consideration. "If we think something has to be done then I will act very quickly, but nothing is on the table," he said.

Orders for the long-range, fuel-efficient A350 — which enters service in 2010, two years after the competing Boeing 787 Dreamliner — fell 28 short of the 200 target for the end of 2005. And Airbus is not expecting any slew of new A380 sales until the superjumbo's entry into commercial service, scheduled for the end of 2006 with Singapore Airlines Ltd.

Airbus said Tuesday its revenue increased 8.8 percent to 22.3 billion euros ($27 billion) in 2005, an all-time high. Operating margin — earnings before interest and taxes, or EBIT, as a share of revenue — rose to above 10 percent from about 9.5 percent in 2004, Humbert said. That implies a 15 percent increase in EBIT to over 2.2 billion euros ($2.7 billion).

Full financial results are to be announced in March by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus and consolidates its results. Britain's BAE Systems PLC owns the rest.

EADS shares dipped after the announcement Tuesday but were 0.6 percent higher at 31.63 euros ($38.36) by late afternoon. BAE shares were down 0.1 percent at 417.75 pence ($7.39).

Shares of Boeing fell 21 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $69.27 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Although the Airbus order record beat a consensus forecast of 950, Kepler Equities analyst Pierre Boucheny said the jump in December may partly have reflected a rush to finalize deals that would otherwise have gone through in January.

"The more that they put into 2005, the less there will be in 2006, that's the risk," Boucheny said. But the Airbus operating margin guidance beat Boucheny's own 9.8 percent forecast, he said. "Everything is a bit better."

The Airbus orders beat the previous all-time record of 1,095 gross orders booked by Boeing and McDonnell Douglas in 1989, eight years before the two companies merged. It also increases Airbus' order backlog to 2,177 aircraft, which amounts to 55 percent of the global order book by number.

Having sold the planes, Airbus now has to build them — a feat that will require production to be increased rapidly to unprecedented levels. Airbus plans to raise its monthly output of single-aisle jets to 30 this year and 32 early in 2007 from the current 28.5, and is already rallying its 600 front-line suppliers to anticipate the surge.

Airbus will place a "special focus on supply chain management" in 2006, Humbert said. "It is, for sure, a constant battle — it's not easy for the supply chain to ramp up like this."

Airbus is predicting more than 400 deliveries in 2006. Humbert declined to give an order forecast but said it would be "difficult" to top 1,000 for a second straight year. He also said this year's accounts would benefit from the full 1.5 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in cost savings achieved in 2005.


But Airbus conceded it had lost ground to Boeing in the market for larger, more profitable planes and said it plans to review its A340 jet in the wake of disappointing sales

Humbert also indicated that the A340 is under review. The four-engine jet — which flies 380 passengers up to 7,500 nautical miles in the largest of its three versions — attracted only 15 firm orders in 2005. Boeing won 154 orders for its competing twin-engined 777 planes.

In longer-range, wide-bodied planes, however, it is Airbus that has struggled to keep up. Boeing sold 455 such jets last year, representing 44 percent of its total orders. Airbus took orders for 193 of the larger planes, or 17 percent of its total — with the rest made up of single-aisle planes that are typically less profitable.As a result, Boeing won the larger share of the overall market by order value in 2005, Humbert said. "As far as we see it, Boeing has 55 percent in value and we have 45 percent in value, although we are leading in the number of aircraft," he said.

Looks like even though AB sold more airplane, Boeing made more money thanks to the 777. Wow it just demolished the AB 340 in terms of sales. Maybe GM can learn something from Boeing. Edited January 17, 2006 by andy82471

[daves87rs]

I would agree.  No one likes detroit.  I don't understand why someone would want to move to detroit to live.

[post="74444"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sad, but becoming true.... :(

[daves87rs]

Yeah....Ann Arbor is cool.....but that's the ONLY area I'd even remotely consider living.

I don't even find Detroit's upscale suburbs all that nice even......like I spent some time in the Birmingham/Bloomfield Hills area.....and there were some nice shops and stuff in Birmingham, and sure there are nice houses, but the whole area (supposedly one of Detroit's most upscale) had a tired, old, and dated feel to the streets, stores, the area in general.  Other areas like Troy, Rochester Hills, etc., were similar.

There are middle-class suburbs in southern California that have a much nicer feel, look, and appearance.

When I lived in Philadelphia, on the east coast, there were some really nice upscale suburbs that showed how to make old feel expensive, luxurious, and genteel.....not just "old."

[post="74994"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ann Arbor isn't that great now...the houses being built in the in the surrouding areas like Ypsi Twp and Dexter are not much to brag about at all..if it wasn't for
U Of M, Ann Arbor would be in a sad state of affairs too....


Looks "old"? "Tired" ? Dated? That's what happens when your state can no longer
make the money it used too...

And things will just get worse if things don't change in the future...


Save Detroit? Heck, it might as well be save Michigan....

[Shantanu]

Yes, I know what you mean..I've found in general the Detroit area (and many other places in the Midwest) have a 'best days are behind it', dying feel to them.. it seems their glory days are long past, and they are in the downward spiral.   

Totally different feel from cities in the west, metro areas I've lived in like Denver and Phoenix  have experienced growth booms for the last decade or more and seem fresh and new feeling overall...

[post="75052"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I wonder how much of that South-western growth is being fueled by illegal immigrants from Mexico. Maybe you won't be so optimistic about the wonders of growth when you're outnumbered by Spanish speakers in your own city, gringo. :lol:

[sciguy_0504]

I wonder how much of that South-western growth is being fueled by illegal immigrants from Mexico.  Maybe you won't be so optimistic about the wonders of growth when you're outnumbered by Spanish speakers in your own city, gringo. :lol:

[post="76384"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's already happening and its disgusting. Something needs to be done soon about the massive problem. The sh!t is close to hitting the fan, I think.

[capriceman]

Hell the only booming town is Jackson because thats where the prison is.

[daves87rs]

Hell the only booming town is Jackson because thats where the prison is.

[post="77513"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:lol: