Who Killed Chrysler?
source: http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/972/who-killed-chrysler/;_ylc=X3...
-
-
- InformedTexan
- added this
The fundamentals of its business structure - unappealing passenger cars, dismal quality, little technology, minimal international operations - are scary enough. Meanwhile, continuous rounds of layoffs have hollowed out the company, starving it of the basic resources it needs to engineer, manufacture and market automobiles.
One executive described Chrysler as looking like an imposing castle from the outside, but actually being empty once you got beyond the front door.
Now debt-holders are balking at government demands to take a haircut, car sales show no signs of improving, and the government's May 1 deadline for demonstrating viability is fast approaching. Having escaped bankruptcy in the late '70s and again in the early '90s, Chrysler appears to have run out of options.
Fiat, once held out as Chrysler's last hope, no longer needs to go through the trouble of a formal takeover. It could easily cherry-pick the company's assets in a liquidation. It would cost the Italian automaker a few bucks more, but it would be a lot cheaper in the long run.
So what happened to Chrysler?
While General Motors has been on a slippery slope for 40 years, the roots of Chrysler's decline are more recent. At the time of its merger with Daimler in 1998, it was the hottest company in Detroit.
With its dream team of engineers, designers, and marketers, Chrysler had created a high-profit lineup of minivans, pickup trucks and Jeeps. At one point, its CEO, Robert J. Eaton, was fantasizing about 20% market share and 8% profit margins. Mixing in Daimler's technical resources, global reach, and the always-tantalizing benefits of synergy should have created a Chrysler recipe for success.
But the Germans hamstrung their new American unit more than they helped it. Their formal business structure clashed with Chrysler's more freewheeling ways and promised resources took a long time to make their way from Stuttgart to Auburn Hills.
And Chrysler made plenty of mistakes on its own. The dream team disbanded, engineering costs skyrocketed and an ill-conceived efficiency program hurt vehicle quality and customer appeal.
In retrospect, the fatal blow was struck when then-CEO Dieter Zetsche tried to stretch the product development budget by churning out more new models with less money. It sounded like black magic -- and as it turned out -- it was.
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, CNN
-
- tags:
- News, News and Politics, Economy, CNN, 3 more
-
-
Scarabus
-
Frankly, I don't care jack-shit about which label is on a vehicle. That's a joke these days. What I care about is that high-quality, fuel efficient vehicles be built in the U.S. by U.S. workers. That's what matters.
U.S. Ford still owns Swedish Volvo, right? And the same engine is put in Volvos and in Ford Tauruses, right? And those engines are designed and manufactured in Japan, right? Yeah.
How can U.S. workers survive? The crucial issues are health care and pensions. Have a universal healthcare system, as in every other first-world country, and American auto manufacturers are instantly competitive.
- 3 years ago
-
Scarabus
-
-
AveryMoore
-
Scarabus:
Scarabus,
Agreed.
It has all the appearances of an industry wide scam to dump employees, dump their pensions, and move just about everything off shore to slave labor tax havens.
Employ actual Americans? What an economically outrageous thought!
What does it do to the US economy? It puts yet another knife in where it hurts most. Economic recovery stalls - which then can be blamed on guess which President?
I doubt that US workers, national disposable income, home-based auto companies, or lunch pail and middle class families are meant to survive this beyond hopes of subsistence.
Welcome to Mexico North. That's what NAFTA et al was meant to create. Not just the dumbing down of a great nation but the impoverishment of its population.
Lucky us! Just in time for the Age of Aquarius!
- 3 years ago
-
AveryMoore
-
-
jubal
-
Scarabus:
That is a good idea especially because it would save the auto companies some money that could help them to reinvest in the company to retool to produce the more desirable fuel efficient vehicles American's want.
- 3 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
AveryMoore
-
Quote, Lee Iacocca;
“We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car”.
All those GM, Ford and Chrysler plants, and millions of jobs offshored elsewhere?
What's the bet that by some miracle they survive this?
And continue to export back to us. Isn't that the plan?
- 3 years ago
-
AveryMoore
-
-
current89
-
Quite interesting, but it makes sense that the C.E.O> would share a good deal of the blame, see as the buck stops with him.
- 3 years ago
-
current89
