Big 3 solution.

[Aren Jay]

.........................

[Dr Caleb]

Won't work. :(

The manufacturing plants need to be near the Detroit crossing, as chassis get shipped back and forth in various states of construction. Up to 6 X IIRC.

Plus, all the steel foundries are out East . . and all the accessory manufacturers such as Magna . . .

We also don't have the nuclear power to run steel foundries cheaply.

Logistically, it just wouldn't work.

[Aren Jay]

.........................

[SC Cheesehead]

You make some good points, but I agree with Dr. Caleb, there are some things, such as relocation of the heavy industries (i.e. steelmaking, foundries, etc.) that would be pretty tough.

I do think that reducing the number of vehicles/models is a good way to go.

[Aren Jay]

.........................

[ParkRanger]

Not what you want to hear if you work for them.

What I would do.

Buy all 3.

liquidize them.

Merge them all into 1.



Getting rid of the competition will increase the costs. :shake:

[SC Cheesehead]

Getting rid of the competition will increase the costs. :shake:

I agree that reducing the number of companies reduces the playing field, though one can only ponder if one strong, well-managed American automaker wouldn't be a strong competitor against foreign rivals.

[Stranger in the Black Sedan]

I also think that wiping out the jobs of everyone in all three companies that makes more than $200K a year would go a long way to fixing the problems.


I don't know about that either. What exactly are you basing this on? There are some high paid people that really, really work hard and have good ideas.

[SC Cheesehead]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I also think that wiping out the jobs of everyone in all three companies that makes more than $200K a year would go a long way to fixing the problems. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
hmmmm, missed that one I guess.


I don't know about that either. What exactly are you basing this on? There are some high paid people that really, really work hard and have good ideas.

Agreed. There's obviously a lot of consolidation that could take place, but there are some folks within the management organization that will have to remain to "steer the boat." Just arbitrarily whacking any position at $200K and above would wreck havoc, IMO.

[Aren Jay]

.........................

[UAW 588]

Get rid of the Jap ***** they push off on the American public. If the Big 3 go under, then this country will really go to the dogs. America better wake up now, cause we won't own anything in this county anymore. It will be split between Japan and even worse CHINA!!!!!!!!!! :mad2:

[whd507]

they dont have too many models, just too many platforms. look at ford in 1970 fullsize cars all shared a platform, custom 500/galaxie 500/LTD/Montery/Marquis/Continental all on one basic platform,(with the Mark III/T-bird closely related) maverick/Mustang-cougar/Torino-falcon/montego-cyclone/ Ranchero all closely related with shared parts. the only orphan would be the pinto, but even then, Mustang II prototypes were being planned on it's platform. there were 16+ distinct vehicles with thousands of possible combos, off two basic platforms. techs could quickly learn a dozen cars at one time. six engine families (8 with pinto) small 6, big six, windsor, cleavland, FE and Lima. the small six, and all v-8s available in some midsize platforms, and big six and all v-8s in the big platforms. lots of variety, without incurring increased costs. ford made money on every car save the Boss Mustang.

now almost each car is a distinct platform with few variations, and fewer options. distinct engines for each model, and no cost savings across platforms. the car that most closely resembles 1970 is the most profitable, yet the most ignored. the trendy cars that are supposed to be the future are barely profitable, if at all.