Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

I agree entirely. Not only no, but HELL NO!

Build some cars that we WANT, not the crap that you've been pushing on us for the past 30 years.

My parents purchased a brand new 1979/80 Subaru DL sedan that provided 38mpg city and 44 hwy. It was a decent car, and my mother drove it until sometime in the mid 90's, when she traded it in. It burned regular and unleaded fuel, was a standard transmission, and seated the entire family comfortably, with a trunk that could hold a good days' shopping. (It was about a 4 on the "gambino" scale - meaning you could get four dead bodies in the trunk)

Tell me, how is it that the US car makers cannot provide an automobile that was present for us over 20 years ago.

How does that work?

dc0de wrote:

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

I agree entirely. Not only no, but HELL NO!

Build some cars that we WANT, not the crap that you've been pushing on us for the past 30 years.

My parents purchased a brand new 1979/80 Subaru DL sedan that provided 38mpg city and 44 hwy. It was a decent car, and my mother drove it until sometime in the mid 90's, when she traded it in. It burned regular and unleaded fuel, was a standard transmission, and seated the entire family comfortably, with a trunk that could hold a good days' shopping. (It was about a 4 on the "gambino" scale - meaning you could get four dead bodies in the trunk)

Tell me, how is it that the US car makers cannot provide an automobile that was present for us over 20 years ago.

How does that work?

Hell NO... The US did not bail out the airlines that have failed.... And I think that the forgin carmakers need to do a "buy-out" of the big 3...

unmanaged wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

I agree entirely. Not only no, but HELL NO!

Build some cars that we WANT, not the crap that you've been pushing on us for the past 30 years.

My parents purchased a brand new 1979/80 Subaru DL sedan that provided 38mpg city and 44 hwy. It was a decent car, and my mother drove it until sometime in the mid 90's, when she traded it in. It burned regular and unleaded fuel, was a standard transmission, and seated the entire family comfortably, with a trunk that could hold a good days' shopping. (It was about a 4 on the "gambino" scale - meaning you could get four dead bodies in the trunk)

Tell me, how is it that the US car makers cannot provide an automobile that was present for us over 20 years ago.

How does that work?

Hell NO... The US did not bail out the airlines that have failed.... And I think that the forgin carmakers need to do a "buy-out" of the big 3...

No foreign automaker, save Honda, would be able to afford any of the Big 3, even at discounted values. You're forgetting that GM is nearly twice as big as Toyota in terms of units sold and revenues.

dc0de wrote:

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

I agree entirely. Not only no, but HELL NO!

Build some cars that we WANT, not the crap that you've been pushing on us for the past 30 years.

My parents purchased a brand new 1979/80 Subaru DL sedan that provided 38mpg city and 44 hwy. It was a decent car, and my mother drove it until sometime in the mid 90's, when she traded it in. It burned regular and unleaded fuel, was a standard transmission, and seated the entire family comfortably, with a trunk that could hold a good days' shopping. (It was about a 4 on the "gambino" scale - meaning you could get four dead bodies in the trunk)

Tell me, how is it that the US car makers cannot provide an automobile that was present for us over 20 years ago.

How does that work?

It's not 1979. Go to any Big 3 dealership and look at the products. They are well made, cost competitive, and come with stellar service intervals and maintenance packages. You can hardly get a better value these days.

flynn23 wrote:

dc0de wrote:

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

I agree entirely. Not only no, but HELL NO!

Build some cars that we WANT, not the crap that you've been pushing on us for the past 30 years.

My parents purchased a brand new 1979/80 Subaru DL sedan that provided 38mpg city and 44 hwy. It was a decent car, and my mother drove it until sometime in the mid 90's, when she traded it in. It burned regular and unleaded fuel, was a standard transmission, and seated the entire family comfortably, with a trunk that could hold a good days' shopping. (It was about a 4 on the "gambino" scale - meaning you could get four dead bodies in the trunk)

Tell me, how is it that the US car makers cannot provide an automobile that was present for us over 20 years ago.

How does that work?

It's not 1979. Go to any Big 3 dealership and look at the products. They are well made, cost competitive, and come with stellar service intervals and maintenance packages. You can hardly get a better value these days.

Perhaps, if you want a vehicle that doesn't get good gas mileage.

This is bullshit. The average engine size in the US is 3.2L, and in Europe it's 2.0L.

That is due to the marketing, the hype, and the lack of efficient choices by the big 3. They sell vehicles that are crap, that "look" pretty... and fall apart in 3-5 years. I'm still driving a 1994 Toyota Camry 2dr, that get's 33MPG. That's on my daily commute, not just hwy miles.

I had a big 3 dealership last year tell me that I needed a new car, because, "Your Camry doesn't have any warranty, and can't be that efficient." And they wanted to sell me a vehicle that got 24/28mpg for 19K.

Sorry, the Big 3 have been screwing the American people for FAR too long. Let them fail. Good Riddance.

dc0de wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

It's not 1979. Go to any Big 3 dealership and look at the products. They are well made, cost competitive, and come with stellar service intervals and maintenance packages. You can hardly get a better value these days.

Perhaps, if you want a vehicle that doesn't get good gas mileage.

This is bullshit. The average engine size in the US is 3.2L, and in Europe it's 2.0L.

That is due to the marketing, the hype, and the lack of efficient choices by the big 3. They sell vehicles that are crap, that "look" pretty... and fall apart in 3-5 years. I'm still driving a 1994 Toyota Camry 2dr, that get's 33MPG. That's on my daily commute, not just hwy miles.

I had a big 3 dealership last year tell me that I needed a new car, because, "Your Camry doesn't have any warranty, and can't be that efficient." And they wanted to sell me a vehicle that got 24/28mpg for 19K.

Sorry, the Big 3 have been screwing the American people for FAR too long. Let them fail. Good Riddance.

Wrong.

For one, engine size is not a good determinant of fuel efficiency. If it was, then diesel engines on ships would never get out of the harbor.

Add to that the fact that European drivers are completely different consumer types than Americans. Driving is for the well to do in Europe. And given that the whole of Europe could fit into America, well... do the math. The products here need to tackle city commutes and take the family on vacation for 4000 miles. And look good doing it. That's a difficult balance to strike.

Detroit makes the cars that people want. Not all people. But they're not making stuff that people don't want. The proof is in the pudding. They sell more cars than foreign marques. Not just globally, but domestically. They don't go in some high rise board room and decide to sell powerful engines that get 20mpg in a "pretty" package because that's what they think will sell. They spend YEARS on market research and focus groups. In fact, one of the biggest problems is that the product development cycle is too long. Takes too much market research into consideration, which is why you get things like the Aztek or the Lincoln pick up. But you also get the Hemi back, the Jeep Liberty, and the return of the Charger and the Challenger (both of which get 25mpg+). The market tells them what they want, and they deliver. The Hemi engine's power efficiency is moot with today's engine designs. But it was the most successful engine branding campaign ever and that's why Chrysler sells a lot of Hemi's. The market WANTS it.

You're also forgetting that General Motors resurrected the electric car with the EV1, and proved that there was a marketplace for it, despite California's emission rules being dropped. If anything, the government screwed GM by telling them that 10% of all cars sold would have to be zero emissions, and then renegg... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:

dc0de wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

It's not 1979. Go to any Big 3 dealership and look at the products. They are well made, cost competitive, and come with stellar service intervals and maintenance packages. You can hardly get a better value these days.

Perhaps, if you want a vehicle that doesn't get good gas mileage.

This is bullshit. The average engine size in the US is 3.2L, and in Europe it's 2.0L.

That is due to the marketing, the hype, and the lack of efficient choices by the big 3. They sell vehicles that are crap, that "look" pretty... and fall apart in 3-5 years. I'm still driving a 1994 Toyota Camry 2dr, that get's 33MPG. That's on my daily commute, not just hwy miles.

I had a big 3 dealership last year tell me that I needed a new car, because, "Your Camry doesn't have any warranty, and can't be that efficient." And they wanted to sell me a vehicle that got 24/28mpg for 19K.

Sorry, the Big 3 have been screwing the American people for FAR too long. Let them fail. Good Riddance.

Wrong.

For one, engine size is not a good determinant of fuel efficiency. If it was, then diesel engines on ships would never get out of the harbor.

Add to that the fact that European drivers are completely different consumer types than Americans. Driving is for the well to do in Europe. And given that the whole of Europe could fit into America, well... do the math. The products here need to tackle city commutes and take the family on vacation for 4000 miles. And look good doing it. That's a difficult balance to strike.

Detroit makes the cars that people want. Not all people. But they're not making stuff that people don't want. The proof is in the pudding. They sell more cars than foreign marques. Not just globally, but domestically. They don't go in some high rise board room and decide to sell powerful engines that get 20mpg in a "pretty" package because that's what they think will sell. They spend YEARS on market research and focus groups. In fact, one of the biggest problems is that the product development cycle is too long. Takes too much market research into consideration, which is why you get things like the Aztek or the Lincoln pick up. But you also get the Hemi back, the Jeep Liberty, and the return of the Charger and the Challenger (both of which get 25mpg+). The market tells them what they want, and they deliver. The Hemi engine's power efficiency is moot with today's engine designs. But it was the most successful engine branding campaign ever and that's why Chrysler sells a lot of Hemi's. The market WANTS it.

You're also forgetting that General Motors resurrected the electric car with the EV1, and proved that there was a marketplace for it, despite California's emission rules being dropped. If anything, the government screwed GM by telling them that 10% of all cars sold would have to b... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

American cars are perceived to be not as reliable as their Asian counterparts and not as refined as their European competitors.

The former reputation might not be well deserved. I have a Ford still on the road after 150k and I was told it would be dead by now. Fixing it up is still cheaper than replacing it and I think it has a long way to go. I think people tend to trash their car's interior or paint long before the Engines become impossible to maintain. However, you don't build a reputation as a maker of reliable vehicles until people are driving vehicles that you made long after their supposed shelf life, and it takes a long time to establish such a reputation.

As for the later issue, driving in Europe/Japan and the US is very different. Europeans drive smaller cars around old cities. Long road trips are not fathomable on the scale you see in the US without multiple border crossings and even then, why not take the train? (Same is true for Japan.) A typical American car would be worse than useless in a European city. The European cars that tend to make it over here are luxury vehicles that are prized for their refinement rather than their general utility. Normal Europeans do not drive Ferraris or BMW 7 series. I don't think the big three really compete with BMW/Mercedes/Lexus, and we have precious few brands that hold a candle to European super cars, principally the Corvette, which does have the advantage of being accessible to the average guy and not designed primarily for purchase by dukes and lords.

What we do well is allowing people to express themselves with their vehicles. Big Hemis, Redneck pickup trucks, bling Escalades, fun Jeeps, these are cars that are worn more than driven. Toyota Corollas hardly have the same personality, although Toyota seems to have figured this out. Whether you want an American car or an Asian car remains mostly a question of whether you want a car that is fun or practical.

I do think the government, particularly California, has fucked both electric vehicles and diesel by pushing the technologies too hard, although both seem to be catching up and I think both make a lot of sense technically.

I think, basically, the big three were not set up financially to see a massive demand collapse, and that is exactly what happened. It is happening across the board. It is certainly the case that the Japanese government, near the end of its massive financial crisis, has thrown money at it's auto makers. It is also the case that an abrupt bankruptcy of the big three would have significant systemic effects in the economy. This is a great way to kick off having large groups of homeless unemployed roaming the country for our Great Depression 2.0. I understand the case for these bailouts WAY better than I understand the case for TARP. So I'm not too troubled by the prospect of giving them loans. There may be a time/place to take them off life support, but this isn't it.

flynn23 wrote:

For one, engine size is not a good determinant of fuel efficiency. If it was, then diesel engines on ships would never get out of the harbor.

But lets not pretend that displacement is unrelated to efficiency. American engines are bigger, and less efficient than their foreign counterparts. The big 3 are way behind on efficient engine design.

To make good power with low displacement you have to run high RPMs and high gear ratios, and to do that reliably requires better design and more precise manufacturing. Take a look at the tolerances on a Japanese vs. American engine, and you'll see what I mean. Japanese cars have an extra digit of precision.

Hijexx wrote:

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

We should help them with financing for their bankruptcy reorganizations, but make terminating the present executives and capping executive salaries a requirement for access to public funds.

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

IMO, this is disingenuous. Who cares about the cost of the jet? It's not as if it was purchased yesterday, right? If so, the more important figure is the jet's maintenance cost.
Also, I'd love to see a breakdown of the $20K estimate for the round-trip cost of the flight.

Hijexx wrote:

How many of the automaker CEOs (and by the way, that includes Gettlefinger, if my viewing of the hearings is correct) travelled commercial to get to Congress yesterday and today?

Zero.

.....

All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

.....

GM and Ford say that it is a corporate decision to have their CEOs fly on private jets and that is non-negotiable, even as the companies say they are running out of cash.

.....

Fine.

As a US Taxpayer this is my answer to your request for a bailout:

Is that clear enough or do you need it spelled out one letter at a time?

Puhleeze. Would you rather have this? A $60B company exec waiting 2 hours to check in on a commercial flight to fly to DC? Where he might have access to Wifi and his cell phone, but not while he's waiting in security checkin. And then he can be in a fucking communications black hole for the 2 hour flight. Thanks but no thanks.

Or productively using that time to make his company healthy? In the grand scheme of things, this isn't even close to comparable to the junkets that AIG execs took or the bonuses that other financial institutions took post bailout cash infusions. Corporate jet travel is no different than picking on a company for buying a copier or large monitors on desktops. Yes, they are an expense, but the time savings and productivity gains are massively justified, especially for execs, who need to be massively productive for 18 hours at a time. WHO wants to fly commercial air? No one. Why? Because it's a complete and utter sinkhole of time. And as we know, time = $.

My only real thought about all this bailout stuff is ...
SO much for national security. When we let businesses get so big that for them to fail can take the whole nation down...what do we CARE about national security. Just SCREW US...and that's exactly what it is all about.