ellives

I agree with what you're saying but the Cobalt is not a good example. To point this out in the same segment as a Corolla and complain about not being enticing is simply off the mark. The Corolla is one of, if not THE blandest product on the market yet it still sells? Why? Because of "Toyota's reputation for quality" (plus the highway mileage number of 40-41.) As I have stated before, GM needs to do something about their mileage numbers in this segment. Too many people look at that one number and sign on the dotted line. The quality comment is reputation only - not born in fact now vs. most other product in the market but it does talk to the fact Toyota hasn't let anyone down with their quality so it's perceived as a lower risk purchase. This fact is a tremendous challenge to overcome and will take time. Let's hope Detroit actually *has* time.

I agree. I'm so tired of hearing Toyota ads beating on the quality issue. GM needs to stick right back in their face and HARD. They're just sitting back and taking the punches. It's just sad.

They need to really look at their ad agency - I heard they sacked the one they'd been using for quite a while. It's criminal we're not seeing this great new products being advertised heavily. (Get back to your school work!)

Good stuff - hopefully they're listening - I'd hope they are since the volume on this site is quite manageable.

You have to figure those VC people are there just to rape and pillage the assets of Chrysler rather than planning to run it as a business. My preference would be for Magna to get the opportunity to buy it and operate it as a business. They're already in the marketplace so understand what is required to an extent.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/17920493 DaimlerChrysler in Talks But No Deal Yet By AP The Associated Press | 04 Apr 2007 | 03:31 AM Confirming weeks of conjecture and rumor, DaimlerChrysler's chairman said Wednesday that it has been in talks with people about the sale of its struggling Chrysler unit. "In this context, I can confirm that we are talking with some of the potential partners who have shown a clear interest," chairman Dieter Zetsche said before the company's annual shareholder meeting. He did not name any of the companies that have been in talks. Zetsche stunned the automotive world on Feb. 14 when he said that continued losses and fierce competition in the United States meant that the German-American automaker was considering all options for its Chrysler unit, including a possible sale. Zetsche did not say whether any decision to sell Chrysler had been made or if the company was any closer to a solution. "It is also true that we need to keep all options open, and that I cannot disclose any details, because we need to have the maximum scope for maneuver," he said in a copy of his remarks to shareholders released ahead of the meeting. The company's management requires "the greatest possible flexibility so that we can identify and then professionally implement the best solution," Zetsche added. Zetsche's announcement in February came after the U.S. unit's $1.5 billion loss in 2006. The company also said it would cut 13,000 jobs and reduce production capacity by 400,000 units as part of a "recovery and transformation plan", aimed at bringing Chrysler back into profitability by 2008. No clear front-runner has yet emerged to buy Chrysler, but Canadian auto-parts supplier Magna International reportedly has submitted a bid to buy the business for as much as $4.7 billion. Major private equity firms Blackstone Group and Cerberus Capital Management LLP also are rumored to be in the hunt. At least some of the company's more than 1 million shareholders have been pushing for a divorce -- in both style and substance. Shareholders Ekkehard Wenger and Leonhard Knoll put forward a motion calling for the company to revert back to its original name, Daimler-Benz AG. They argued in their motion that to "maintain a corporate name that evokes associations with the failure of the business combination with Chrysler is detrimental to the image of the corporation and its products." DaimlerChrysler shareholders are set to gather Wednesday for their annual general meeting, but managers appear unlikely to announce the sell-off of struggling U.S. arm Chrysler, despite calls for its sale. © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sorry but the Edge is fugly. I'm surprised it's selling as well as it is.

You mean lemmings.

If you want to see how they'll spin it, just look at Ford's release. Every comment is positive other than the last one: down 9%.... ouch.

Just shows what you can do when you heavily advertise a product. The Edge is advertised on TV regularly. I have never seen a TV ad for the Acadia.

I don't follow the Euro closely but I *do* know the UK pound (sterling) is now 2x the US dollar. Not sure what's driving this but I haven't seen anything about the UK that would justify it.

Very true. Although, come to think of it, it's the rest of us that don't respect THEM so maybe they all *do* actually respect themselves.

You woulda had me if the typo didn't say "BREAKING NEW." No self-respecting news person would have misspelled that.

Huh?

Ridiculous. You could make this argument, MAYBE, when GM had 50% market share. Now there's no basis at all. Toyota is paying market wages. GM will need to do the same to remain competitive but needs a favorable deal to get back on par with the transplants. We are not living in the 50's or 60's any more when management could collude to take advantage of labor. We live in the age of the internet where labor can actually communicate amongst themselves without a union. What a concept. Give me a union that doesn't protect the weak underperformers and we can talk.

Who's going to pay? That's an easy one. Answer: Our children and grandchildren. Between the war debt and the costs of Medicare and Social Security coming due over the next 20 years, we'll be seeing a calamity that rivals the Great Depression. Bush will be dead and gone by the time this one all plays out but it's going to be ugly.

I'm curious how many ToyMotor workers feel their employer has done them an injustice. I'm thinking the UAW is just blowing smoke up their collective asses.

Apparently the leech is looking for another host.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/UPDATE/703290459/1148/AUTO01 Some Toyota workers will speak about their jobs Saturday at a UAW-supported town hall meeting in Kentucky. The topic of the meeting is "The Human Cost of Toyota's Success." UAW Vice President Terry Thurman will be among those attending the event in Lexington, Ky. The union has struggled to organize employees at foreign-owned auto makers. A news release about the meeting says workers will talk about on-the-job injuries, the use of temporary workers and other concerns about conditions at Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Kentucky. Thurman, head of the union's National Organizing Department, said in a statement that "Our union is firmly and fully committed to helping these workers gain justice." The meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. at the Hunter Presbyterian Church in Lexington.

Of course - for every generalization there is an exception. My point was whereas today having a pension is a rarity in non-union positions of any kind, in union shops it's standard fare. My step-dad worked in what was essentially an automobile-related industry which was unionized as well.

I share Fly's comments here. My parent's would not have a comfortable retirement without a union (not UAW.) This said I have always frowned on some of the things my step-dad did as a union member. It was (and always seems to be) about what the company can do for the union member. This said, I don't think ANY senior level executive acts any differently. They take advantage of every possible thing they can get away with. I think the difference is when executives are getting away with what they do, in the end, they are personally on the hook for the performance of the company. Labor is not. For example, if a company has a bad quarter (year, decade) or two, there is usually a shake up of the executive team and people are fired and they lose their big salaries. They are personally vested in the results of the company. Labor is impacted by the company to a certain extent but when unions create things like job banks, they are sheltering themselves from the results of bad business and so do not act, taking into account the results of union actions. Over the long term this kind of thing will have the tendency to destroy the host company as it has in the case of Ford and GM. This is because companies work in competitive environments and people like Toyota will spring up eventually. Unfortunately market forces do not apply to municipal institutions where unions are rampant and there is no market force behavior to keep things under control. As a result these union members enjoy their salary, health coverage of some sort plus a pension. All this without the opportunity of weeding out the weak players. I'm quite sure everyone can think of teachers they've known who were protected by unions and yet should not have been teaching. This should not be allowed and one reason I will never support unions - ever - until they stop protecting weak members. Until then I indict the whole lot of them as dishonest people.

How would this help over the long run? Notice the reference to the words "salary relative to market?" This means their competitors are paying less than they are which means they are at a disadvantage which eventually means they'll be put out of business. Sound familiar? In some ways it's a good analogy. You *could* argue City Circuit is to GM what Best Buy (or others) is to Toyota. The only way a union would help in CC's situation is if they were unionized along with all their competitors. Otherwise a union just adds overhead, which is not desirable in a competitive market with thin margins.

The article quoted there had been pruned since it was posted back in January presumably. The comments were left behind though - and they were ugly and telling. A lot echoed my own feelings and I hope there's enough time to solve the problems. I still feel the demise of the UAW is the only hope for the future.

What's the basis for this statement? What's your source?

If your statement about finding higher paying jobs elsewhere is true, they should seriously consider taking those jobs. Job security is an illusion in today's "global economy." The UAW should be thinking hard about how to reduce labor costs. This includes eliminating things like the infamous "job bank" which I don't believe anyone feels is a reasonable cost in today's automotive environment. Labor knows better than anyone where improvements can be made and costs reduced. It needs to be a team effort to get changes completed. This has always been one of the contrasts between GM and Toyota and the concept needs to be embraced by the whole GM team.