TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 374 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know we aren't suppose to talk politics, but this is a car issue :) !

"My fear is that you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass.

Does it bug anyone that the same law makers that pushed for the unions that created the current mess are now shaking a finger at the companies that suffered?

The auto industry has evolved dramatically in the past 25 years. Like most American manufacturing, the "Big Three" are old companies stuck with an outdated infastructure in an industry that rapidly changed. Robots have taken the place of the armies of workers in Detroit's past. So not only did domestics have to pay to modernize, but they also need to pay for the past manufacturing methods. The market has shrunk, because foreign manufactures have taken a huge chunk of the domestic market. Leaving Detroit automakers paying a greater amount of benefits than the foreigners, while generating less and less revenue. They are forced to produce a lower quality product.

The problem at Ford, GM and Chrysler is caused by pensions. They can't produce the same quality of product as foreign car makers, because they are supporting more people. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the government should approve the loans.
 

·
Voice/Data Guru
Joined
·
7,781 Posts
They need to first sell there corporate jets in my option, The CEOs flying down to DC in a 35 M jet to beg for money :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
They will, but congress has been looking at financial reports from the Big 3, from 7 years ago, and holding them to that today; even with all the changes we have made in the last 3 years.


If people don't realize that buying American produced goods and mechantile does affect them, this is certain to happen, and history will repeat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
The problem at Ford, GM and Chrysler is caused by pensions. They can't produce the same quality of product as foreign car makers, because they are supporting more people. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the government should approve the loans.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place? Hardly.

If I drive up to you in a Ferrari, and ask for a loan so I can make my car payment. Are you going to give me a loan?

IMHO, let them go into Chapter 11 so they can unload their legacy problems, just like the airline industry did.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the unions and the condition they have placed this country in.

My question is: What concessions are the unions willing to make while they are asking me to make concessions to bail them out for their last 25 years of greed. Keep in mind that the average hourly wage of a UAW blue color worker is $30+. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/uaw-pricing-themselves-out-of-market.html

Now if the unions want to lower their salaries by 15%, agree to never go on strike again, and make other concessions, then yeah I would say help them out. But I will never agree to help someone that is not willing to help themselves.

So I say no, do not give them another penny. They have ALREADY been approved for $25 billion to retool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
My issue is this. The banks didn't deserve a bail out, they caused this mess along with the government (money printing = inflation) and now the whole economy is on the rag. The big three on the other hand weren't selling vehicles with rediculous loans or making bad sales. They were merely a victim of the economic turmoil. If fuel prices wouldn't have shot through the ceiling the whole demand for fuel efficient vehicles and badmouthing detroit would have never happened. We'd still be complaining about vehicle quality, like cheap plastic interiors. People always have to find a bad guy instead of blaming their bad spending habits and the governments eager beaver attitude towards solving the worlds problems. Global warming and environmental groups got the job done finally. They've been badgering Americans for decades now and the only reason Americans didn't care was because it wasn't effecting them. After fuel skyrocketed, suddenly everyone is all environmental haha. It's a frickin joke. Americans don't care about the environment, they care about their wallet. They buy things they can't afford, live beyond their means, and expect the government to fix the mistakes they made.

So yes, the big three should get some funding. The banks never should have. And if the government wants to fix things they need to do an economic stimulus that will help the American people. Imagine if they spent 700 billion on the spenders of this country! We'd all be rich, buy all kinds of crap and pay things off. But even that has it's own flaws, inflation would fly because greed would set in, can't let the American people get too cozy, jack the prices up.. and our currency would be like that of the African countries buying bread for two billion dollars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
They need to first sell there corporate jets in my option,
The CEOs flying down to DC in a 35 M jet to beg for money :crazy:
If I drive up to you in a Ferrari, and ask for a loan so I can make my car payment.
Are you going to give me a loan?

I agree and so does Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY.)
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo.
It kind of makes you suspicious."
 

·
Stroked and Blown
Joined
·
2,395 Posts
Yeah, the CEO's coming there in their own private jets does not look good. They are part of the reason too, not just Unions although Unions are much to blame, they shouldnt take all the blame. Unions and the corperate elitists should ALL take pay cuts. What gets me fired up is how it's the blue collar that gets blamed for everything while the corperate elitists are NEVER in the wrong. Some people think this way too.

They should ALL take paycuts and invest the extra money saved into making better automobiles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Corporate jets can't sink these corporations, that is just another stupid media distraction from the real issues.

It is like you driving your car to the bank to re-mortgage rather than taking the train because you have other obligations.

I have a friend who flys a corporate jet, he makes a modest living flying CEO's round. That is a real job too and I hope he doesn't become unemployed because people can't see the big picture.
 

·
Voice/Data Guru
Joined
·
7,781 Posts
Corporate jets can't sink these corporations, that is just another stupid media distraction from the real issues.

Nothing stupid about it Its the truth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
It is like you driving your car to the bank to re-mortgage rather than taking the train because you have other stuff to do that day.
There is a big difference in asking a bank for a loan/re-mortgage and asking the American tax payer for a loan to pay for your Ferrari (or corporate jet in this case).

Why should I, as a taxpayer, feel obligated to give a dime to someone that has proven repeatedly that they are incapable of managing/budgeting their finances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
I have to agree that CEO ethics is a big issue in the corporate world right now. Most CEO's run their company like its a game because either way if the company fails, they resign and get their $100 million bonus. The banks should of never been bailed out because they are one of the sources of this mess. But anyways heres some good news i guess for us Ford loyalists:

Ford Might Be the Winner if the Auto Bailout Fails
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1860554,00.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
There is a big difference in asking a bank for a loan/re-mortgage and asking the American tax payer for a loan to pay for your Ferrari (or corporate jet in this case).

Why should I, as a taxpayer, feel obligated to give a dime to someone that has proven repeatedly that they are incapable of managing/budgeting their finances?
Again, should it matter to the bank if you fill your gas tank using some of the assets that could be used to pay for mortgage?

A corporate jet isn't a Ferrari to a CEO, any more than a car is Ferrari to the guy who could take a bus. It is a tool for efficiency.

Besides that, if corporate jets were the real issue, why can Toyota maintain a fleet of jets and still make a profit?

Like I said, the jet issue is a distraction from the real issues, it makes a sensational story for those eager to think everything is a scandel. But the issue has no real substance under the surface if put in proper perspective. Sure, the "Big Three" could cut more jobs in their aviation divisions, but that would do nothing to solve the real problem. It would be like putting a band aid on a heart attack, total and complete nonsense.
 

·
Stroked and Blown
Joined
·
2,395 Posts
Corporate jets can't sink these corporations, that is just another stupid media distraction from the real issues.

It is like you driving your car to the bank to re-mortgage rather than taking the train because you have other obligations.

I have a friend who flys a corporate jet, he makes a modest living flying CEO's round. That is a real job too and I hope he doesn't become unemployed because people can't see the big picture.
So basically, you agree that american taxpayers should bail them out so multi-billion dollar CEOs can keep their billions, keep their fancy yahts, keep their private planes, but the blue collar worker should work for minimum wage and give up everything?

You didnt actually say this, but that seems to be what your hinting around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Even the Dems want to see a plan before cutting a check:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27824057

And these are the same Dems (Pelosi, Reid) who rolled over for the banks.

I owned a '96 Honda Accord for ten years and ran it up to 276K before getting my first T-Bird, which had 71K verified miles on the clock. After compiling a list of all that I have had to replace (not upgrade - replace) in ten months, and comparing that with the much smaller list that I had to replace in ten years, I find it extremely difficult to feel any sympathy for Detroit. While they have been able to figure out the key to one-year reliability, they are still grossly lacking in the long-term department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
An interesting take on the whole "corporate jet" thing. Note that I didn't write this, I just copied it from somewhere else.

I actually know some people in the jet set world (my flight instructor is a private jet pilot), and believe it or not, it makes better sense financially to fly your highly paid CEO around in a private jet.

Let's look at the total compensation of the CEO of ford. In 2007, he was paid $21,670,674 in salary, bonuses, stocks, etc. The typical work year is around 2000 hours. Let's just say that he's a really dedicated CEO and works 3k hours a year. That's 7223 and change per hour! Now, let's look at the economics of flying him around.

According to the article, the GM CEO's trip in the jet cost him $20k (that's a little high in my estimate, but I don't know the specifics of the fuel burn of that jet, the pilot salaries, or the cost of Jet-A in Detroit). Let's assume it was a similar amount for the Ford CEO.

To fly commercially, you have to take into account the airport lead time (most people show up 2 hours early for a flight) each way. That's 4 hours or about $30k waiting at the airport. The flight also would more than likely arrive earlier and leave later than abolutely necessary. Let's assume that he gets really lucky and can make his way through the airport and baggage claim in under 30 minutes. Let's also assume his flight is on-time and pretty close to when he needs to get there and only leaves him 30 minutes to spare after transit time from the airport, you're still adding yet another hour each way, or $15k. Add on to that the fact that he likely had an entourage, and you're adding several thousand bucks in airfare, and even more in wasted time.

When they show up at the jet center, typically, the jet will be waiting, and they just have to move from the car to the jet. I have seen this any times sitting at a local jet center, and if you're in a hurry it takes all of about 5 minutes from the time the car shows up until you're taxiing for departure.

You've already more than paid for the cost of the flight by simply taking the wait at the airport from 2 hours to about 5 minutes. Nevermind the airfare, likely delays and less than optimal siutations at the airport.

It really does make good financial sense. Now, don't get me started on whether that CEO really earned his $22m, but that's not really relevant to the quesiton of whether using the jet was a good idea.
The key, rather than the private jet issue, is what he says at the end - do those CEOs actually deserve $22 million?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
So basically, you agree that american taxpayers should bail them out so multi-billion dollar CEOs can keep their billions, keep their fancy yahts, keep their private planes, but the blue collar worker should work for minimum wage and give up everything?

You didnt actually say this, but that seems to be what your hinting around.
By soaking up media "class-warfare" rhetoric, I think you are missing the big picture. It isn't the average blue collar worker that pays the tax bill that keeps this country running.

Besides that, the average "blue collar" employee at Ford, GM or Chrysler make far more than minimum wage and so are those who draw pensions from those corporations.

Corporations provide good jobs. (including the people who work in their aviation departments) I'm only asking that we be careful not to bite the hand that feeds and that we start looking at the real issues instead of dwelling on trivialities.

CEO benefits are not the real issue, it is a problem related to huge (costly) changes manufacturing processes that have given foreign manufacturers a distinct advantage. They have lower overhead and thus can sell better products for less.

I know this might not make me popular with those looking for a convenient scapegoat, but it is the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I owned a '96 Honda Accord for ten years and ran it up to 276K before getting my first T-Bird, which had 71K verified miles on the clock. After compiling a list of all that I have had to replace (not upgrade - replace) in ten months, and comparing that with the much smaller list that I had to replace in ten years, I find it extremely difficult to feel any sympathy for Detroit. While they have been able to figure out the key to one-year reliability, they are still grossly lacking in the long-term department.
There's a reason why Detroit had to cut quality and that's what I'm trying to bring to light. Meanwhile, the media who should be telling us about real issues, is caught up in this notion that CEO's and corporate jets are the only important issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
An interesting take on the whole "corporate jet" thing. Note that I didn't write this, I just copied it from somewhere else.



The key, rather than the private jet issue, is what he says at the end - do those CEOs actually deserve $22 million?
Should a professional athelete be paid more than the man that ensure that thousands of people get a paycheck?

What good does hitting a home run bring to the American economy?

CEO's are responsible for the economy that we depend on.
 
1 - 20 of 374 Posts
Top