GM's new plan to survive

[Eighty-Six Z]

I'm guessing that the intial round of job losses would probably come from buying out people who have been with the company 30 years plus and are close to retirement. Or they might offer a package to everyone, no matter what their tenure is. In this case the amount of years with the company would probably determine the level of compensation. By selling off the other brands (Hummer, Saab, Saturn) they would also lose the headcount that comes along with it (Research, Design, & Engineering). But that is still alot of jobs being talked about being cut. Probably several plants would be shut down as well.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

As I recall, GMC is their most profitable brand.

I don't doubt it. I still think it is redundant. Why have 2 truck brands when 1 will suffice? I still don't get it. You could justify making a bunch of busses and large trucks under this name, but I don't like seeing both Silverados and Siennas on the road. It's a waste of the parts that are replaced to make one into the other. It might not seem like much over the course of one year, but every dime could be more research into a performance car, alternative fuels, or the advertising budget.

Redundancy is waste.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I don't like seeing both Silverados and Siennas on the road.

*ahem*

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

*ahem*

Don't be mad. All of the options can be transferred from GMC to Chevy. All of the design components can be shared or compromised. Maybe GMC's current styling will be important to the next generation of Silverado. All I'm saying is that GM won't justify a Firebird for Pontiac, so why should it justify a Sienna for GMC?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Don't be mad. All of the options can be transferred from GMC to Chevy. All of the design components can be shared or compromised. Maybe GMC's current styling will be important to the next generation of Silverado. All I'm saying is that GM won't justify a Firebird for Pontiac, so why should it justify a Sienna for GMC?

Dude...it's SIERRA. The sienna's a toyota minivan.

GMC Sierra Denali



Toyota Sienna

[str8himalaya]

Here's my .02 cents worth with a couple points...forgive me if i offend someone in the process :

1. The unions are the number one reason all the industry is in the situation they are in. I love the idea of unions, until they get out of hand like the UAW has. It is ALMOST worth it to see them go bankrupt to get rid of the ridiculous unions. The fact that millions will lose there job, just makes me want to cry thinking about it. This is one area that MUST be fixed. I believe full heartedly in unions, with respect. Unions are for companies being unfair. Right now, and for the past few years, GM has been hemmoraging, and the unions have sat back and watched. Its about time they cut some fat like the rest of the industry, not to mention the nation. If anybody has been unfair, its the unions. They didn't have a problem crying foul when they felt the industry was making too much money and they weren't getting their cut, but they sure as hell didn't give any of that money back when shit hit the fan. It's time.
2. I don't personally believe the SUV and Truck market doomed GM. Do you see how many are driving around? They were only selling what people were buying. Supply vs. demand. The more people demand, the more you supply if you want to make money. The oil crisis is really to blame here. If gas didn't get ridiculous (which GM had no clue at the time i'm sure), then they would not be in the situation they are in.
3. I really like the vision they have proposed. I like the idea of fewer brands, brings the focus back to what the masses really want. Plus it gives them more minds to concentrate on the camaro
4. Lastly, they really do need some help, obviously. It would be an absolute disaster if they went under. Ford would be eating there "enough money to get through '09" real quick if GM goes under. It would destroy many many many people, not to mention the national unemployment rate would be over 10 %, which we all know, is uh oh territory. Unemployment means no money, no money means no businesses, and that means the dreaded...depression.

All in all i pray for the people that are directly affected by this. To think a few weeks ago i was mad because i couldn't get this or that on my camaro, blah, blah, blah. I'm just happy i am still employed and able to support my way of life as it is. It is going to get worse before it gets better, but i hope and pray they can pull it out.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Dude...it's SIERRA. The sienna's a toyota minivan.

GMC Sierra Denali



Toyota Sienna

That right there is proof that I've been up for too long applying to too many jobs and finishing too many school projects. I need to hit the sack—my bad!

[kdbolt70]

Originally Posted by str8himalaya

Here's my .02 cents worth with a couple points...forgive me if i offend someone in the process :

1. The unions are the number one reason all the industry is in the situation they are in. I love the idea of unions, until they get out of hand like the UAW has. It is ALMOST worth it to see them go bankrupt to get rid of the ridiculous unions. The fact that millions will lose there job, just makes me want to cry thinking about it. This is one area that MUST be fixed. I believe full heartedly in unions, with respect. Unions are for companies being unfair. Right now, and for the past few years, GM has been hemmoraging, and the unions have sat back and watched. Its about time they cut some fat like the rest of the industry, not to mention the nation. If anybody has been unfair, its the unions. They didn't have a problem crying foul when they felt the industry was making too much money and they weren't getting their cut, but they sure as hell didn't give any of that money back when shit hit the fan. It's time.
2. I don't personally believe the SUV and Truck market doomed GM. Do you see how many are driving around? They were only selling what people were buying. Supply vs. demand. The more people demand, the more you supply if you want to make money. The oil crisis is really to blame here. If gas didn't get ridiculous (which GM had no clue at the time i'm sure), then they would not be in the situation they are in.
3. I really like the vision they have proposed. I like the idea of fewer brands, brings the focus back to what the masses really want. Plus it gives them more minds to concentrate on the camaro
4. Lastly, they really do need some help, obviously. It would be an absolute disaster if they went under. Ford would be eating there "enough money to get through '09" real quick if GM goes under. It would destroy many many many people, not to mention the national unemployment rate would be over 10 %, which we all know, is uh oh territory. Unemployment means no money, no money means no businesses, and that means the dreaded...depression.

All in all i pray for the people that are directly affected by this. To think a few weeks ago i was mad because i couldn't get this or that on my camaro, blah, blah, blah. I'm just happy i am still employed and able to support my way of life as it is. It is going to get worse before it gets better, but i hope and pray they can pull it out.

I very much agree. I put a substantial amount of blame on the union leaders who argued for increased wages and benefits all these years, without the willingness to part with them when times got tough. I also agree that you just can't blindly blame the lack of foresight on GM's part for not producing fuel efficient vehicles before gasoline skyrocketed. They built what they could sell. Out of nowhere comes double, triple gas prices, along with a crashing stock market and tumbling housing values, and people expect them to be prepared with cheap fuel efficient vehicles. If wall street had the foresight that many feel the auto industry should have had, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

[storm79]

Buick should drop everything but their two biggest cars.

just to let you know buick only has 2 cars, well technically but they have 3 vehicles but they got the Lucerne and the Lacrosse and those are their cars and they have the Enclave which is a hit crossover. So I'd leave the Buick brand alone because they are selling good. Also the new Lacrosse is supposed to be extremely luxurious and nice

[Legend]

When would dealers have to close or no longer be able to carry the GM brands?

Are we talking 1 Jan 09 or between now and 2012? This plan is from now to 2012 so what would be the timeline on dealers?

Are they annual renewals or contracts for years? When do they come up? What is the process of no longer selling to a dealer?

Lots of questions I know but if the Camaro is being built starting 16 Feb 09...the dealer closings may not even begin by then? Maybe it will take a year to stop?

IDK...just asking since a lot of us are wondering the same thing...is my order good at my dealer or should I worry?

I know there are a lot larger things in this thread and it all concerns me too!! But maybe we can knock one item off the list?

[GrnMchin]

I know GM had a electric car in the Saturn line along time before this and scraped the whole idea. Hindsight is 20/20

[Jiu Jitsu Jon]

I for one, am relieved to hear that they're not killing off Pontiac completely as was rumored earlier. There's too much heritage w/that brand. Perhaps since they said they're going to make the brand a "performance niche" we will see something worthy of the name like...oh I dunno. You can guess, people get all torqued out of shape when I even say it though...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Don't be mad. All of the options can be transferred from GMC to Chevy. All of the design components can be shared or compromised. Maybe GMC's current styling will be important to the next generation of Silverado. All I'm saying is that GM won't justify a Firebird for Pontiac, so why should it justify a Sierra for GMC?

Volume. GMC sells 10x as many Sierra's as Pontiac would sell Firebirds. As for the entire GM fullsize truck/SUV platform, which are roughly 10 models, the accounted for about 1 000 000 sales last year, though this year will be significantly worse. Zeta/Zeta II won't sell half of that world wide sales but it is split accross Chevy, Pontiac, Vauxhaul, Buick, and Holden. In effect, it could easily be argued that the Camaro is more of a badge engineering problem than the full sized GMC's are.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by GrnMchin

I know GM had a electric car in the Saturn line along time before this and scraped the whole idea. Hindsight is 20/20

It wasn't in the Saturn line, it was just leased at Saturn dealreships, the name saturn was not even on the car, and it was only available on the west coast. it was an experiment and when it was launched they said at that time that they were just going to be out for the terms of the leases, as the leases expired GM took the cars back and evaluated each one and they got the info from the cars and that info has been used in the development of the Volt. So to say they scrapped the idea is not very accurate. The car was not as efficent as the Volt will be, there was no backup power source, when you ran out of battery power you stopped... at least the Volt will be able to continue on.