Is it the end of Chrysler?

[AHarris]

To summarize a bunch of articles I read last night about speculating about the fate of Chrysler, they all seem to agree on a few things:



1. Chrysler as we know it now won't be around much longer

2. If and when Chrysler emerges from this recession, it will be a much smaller company and could focus on the Dodge Ram, Jeep, and the minivan... maybe the 300C/Charger.

3. Relief that the GM - Chrysler merger didn't happen

4. Chrysler could partner with Nissan or Volkswagen and we would be seeing Chrysler's small cars being replaced with Nissan/VW cars and the Dodge Ram and Nissan Titan being the same truck (this part is old news posted on here several times before).

5. Ford will pull through--they are in the best shape of the Big 3 right now--GM is in the worst shape... Chrysler LLC is at the mercy of Cerberus who just wants to unload the company.

6. The unions are killing these automakers and the costs of pensions, medical care, etc are bleeding them dry. One article pointed out that the Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc pay workers to "make cars" in their Southern U. S. plants while the Big 3 pay workers "who made cars. "

7. The bailouts will happen eventually which will keep them all going for a little longer.



Two questions for the group:

1. Do you think Chrysler will survive? Why or why not?

2. Does the current situation at Chrysler make you think about getting rid of your Dodge (because of long-term warranty/service concerns) or would it make you reconsider buying a new Ram?

 

[kenny61]

1. Don't know about them surviving it depends on the economy



2. I will give up my Chrysler when the pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel. One of my goals in life is to make enough money so that one day I can be buried in my truck. Yes I have already told my wife my wishes. I dont know what disturbed her more the truck thing or the fact I wanted my old dog dug up and buried with me too! She seemed ok with the fact that I must be buried with my boots on.

 

[JacobsD]

6. The unions are killing these automakers and the costs of pensions, medical care, etc are bleeding them dry. One article pointed out that the Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc pay workers to "make cars" in their Southern U. S. plants while the Big 3 pay workers "who made cars. "

There's the big one. Thats what started the whole fiasco.

 

[daytripper63]

I like my truck and I like my 300C and I like my Jeep (although its a 1957 real jeep) but outside of that I have had other chrysler products as rental cars when traveling and I must say what a POS. You would think they would have learned a lesson the last time they where in financial trouble and develop a broader product line with both economical and muscle or both in one like the Subaru WRX.

I think Ford will do fine since they have been down longer than the rest and have been able to get the jump on creativity and I have driven a few of their new vehicles and must say I like the new Edge. All the big 3 should have built a broader range of vehicles, so it is hard to have sympathy on them and it's not like Toyota just POPPED UP and did good all of a sudden... The big 3 has had plenty of time to build a better product and become competitive with Toyota / Honda / Nissan etc.

 

[kenny61]

My biggest problem is if the big three fold what will happen to NASCAR? I aint gonna watch 43 toyotas zippin around the track

 

[JCasper]

Yep, the unions are going to kill them off slowly.



The cost of all those pensions and benefits going out to all the retired guys is going to break them.

 

[AMink]

So the question is, "Do we bail them out?" I say no. Unless I get a new car for sending my tax dollars to them, no. The union will fight tooth and nail to keep things status quo, but if the Big 3 fail, where does that leave the union? They need to make some changes in philosophy too, along with the Big 3 management. Either way, people will lose jobs. That's unfortunate, but to lose a relative few as opposed to all of them? I think the relative few gets the nod.

 

[daytripper63]

My biggest problem is if the big three fold what will happen to NASCAR? I aint gonna watch 43 toyotas zippin around the track

I'm sure youll see a Honda and a Nissan in there too :-laf



I was listening to CNBC talking about the big three and the CEO says they believe that if they file for bankruptcy to reorganize that 80% of consumers will look elswhere and not buy there vehicles... I think that is already happening even without the BK issue because they dont build a vehicle to compare with some of the forign car makers

 

[rbattelle]

So the question is, "Do we bail them out?" I say no.

I agree. If we bail them out, where does it end? I said the same thing when we took public ownership of all those banks.



On the other hand, we've already abandoned capitalism, so I fully expect our "representatives" to throw all sorts of money at GM, Ford, and Chrysler.



Eventually, no one will fail, ever. [No one will succeed, either, of course].



Ryan

 

[fest3er]

... Eventually, no one will fail, ever. [No one will succeed, either, of course]. ...

That is, of course, the Socio-Fascist Way. Just as there can be no failures or successes without trying, there can be no losses or gains without ownership and there can be no disappointment or joy without hope. Think about it. If no one owns anything, then nothing can be stolen. That alone eliminates a huge category of crime: larceny. And since you can never own anything, there's no reason to try to make your corner of the world a better place. And since your corner of the world will always be dull and dreary, you will never be happy or sad, joyous or dejected. The Socio-Fascisti have nearly won. They are well on their way to making everyone (but themselves, of course) equal, where no one (but themselves, of course) has anything, wants anything, or cares about it in the least.



I'd rather be bombed back to the stone age than live like that.

 

[CumminsBu]

If Chrysler does fold. Who will Cummins sell their engines too, any word or humors floating around?

 

[rbattelle]

If Chrysler does fold. Who will Cummins sell their engines too, any word or humors floating around?

One possibility is that Cummins will no longer appear in light duty trucks. They have a healthy engine business without sales to Chrysler, as far as I can see.



Sure, they make a nice bit of change from Dodge sales, but it's not like they'll be in trouble without Dodge.



With Cat departing the on-highway engine market, Cummins stands to pick up some business there, which probably would be enough to offset an end to light duty sales.



Ryan

 

[brods]

1. Yes in altered form, Chrysler will be around.



2. Even if I wasn't my own warrenty station, fear of not being able to get warrenty repairs would be no reason to drop thousands switching to a different vehicle just on the chance my Ram could need repairs. Parts will be available.



Buy a new Chrysler... sure as long as it is not a first year model and it fills the need.

 

[SHobbs]

I find it amusing that the unions are the ONLY thing people want to lay 90% of the blame on. Having been employed with Union Pacific for nearly 11 years and being responsible for filling jobs that supply GM in Arlington TX with railcars it is not the unions.



In Arlington we have the main plant, three yes three satellite warehouses and a fleet of trucks running everyday to keep the plant running. We get at least three trains a day coming to our little yard that are dedicated to GM and those same railcars are sent back to where they came from only to come back again. Frames from Mexico and various parts from who knows where. We not only supply the plant but also all three satellite warehouses and guess who pays the freight, GM does.



Gm pays a higher cost due to us supplying whats called premium service. We get calls all the time for A. S. A. P's and extra railcars, we have four jobs dedicated to serving GM and the three warehouses so bascially GM pays thier wages, in a sense.



Now what if this GM plant had more on property manufacturing such as their own metal stamping or had the three smaller warehouses on site instead of all the trucks hauling it in. Basically it comes down to SMARTER management and less freight charges. Sure it provides me with a job not arguing that at all. What if the CEO's did not have their HUGE compensation packages and multi million lifestyles?

 

[schv]

I just hope they survive long enough to build me the Challenger I want.

 

[kowaliga]

Drill, baby, drill.

 

[BigPapa]

I'd say don't bail them out either, except for the fact that if they do belly up the Chinese will probably buy them up for pennies on the dollar.



The treasury chairman has already changed the terms of the other buy out. They are now buying stock in these banks and companies and they refuse to say how they're using the money. They say that the terms of the buy out state that they don't have to reveal anything. I guess that's the difference in a buy out and a loan, no responsibility.



What'll be next? The real estate market?



Scott

 

[daytripper63]

Maybe the oil companies can bail em out :-laf

 

[MEby]

Maybe the oil companies can bail em out :-laf

No. The oil companies profits are way down. Maybe we should bail out the oil companies.

 

[MEby]

I find it amusing that the unions are the ONLY thing people want to lay 90% of the blame on. Having been employed with Union Pacific for nearly 11 years and being responsible for filling jobs that supply GM in Arlington TX with railcars it is not the unions.



In Arlington we have the main plant, three yes three satellite warehouses and a fleet of trucks running everyday to keep the plant running. We get at least three trains a day coming to our little yard that are dedicated to GM and those same railcars are sent back to where they came from only to come back again. Frames from Mexico and various parts from who knows where. We not only supply the plant but also all three satellite warehouses and guess who pays the freight, GM does.



Gm pays a higher cost due to us supplying whats called premium service. We get calls all the time for A. S. A. P's and extra railcars, we have four jobs dedicated to serving GM and the three warehouses so bascially GM pays thier wages, in a sense.



Now what if this GM plant had more on property manufacturing such as their own metal stamping or had the three smaller warehouses on site instead of all the trucks hauling it in. Basically it comes down to SMARTER management and less freight charges. Sure it provides me with a job not arguing that at all. What if the CEO's did not have their HUGE compensation packages and multi million lifestyles?

The unions may not be the only problem, but they are certainly a large factor. GM's biggest problem is the healthcare they are paying for hundreds of thousands of people that no longer work for them, something the unions negotiated. Yes, GM agreed to it and signed the contract, but did they have a choice? I say probably not. If you don't agree to the contract, all your workers go on strike. Unions have gotten to the point that they have the same amount of power the companies did before unions. Kinda interesting. Seems to me they are creating the same problem for the companies that they were trying to prevent on the employee's parts in the first place.