Dissecting the Big Three’s woes

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, November 23, 2008 Bob Grimes, Dallas

Let them file bankruptcy

Automakers have burned through $18 billion in the last quarter. They beg for an immediate $25 billion in aid from Congress.

Realistically, it seems all that $25 billion would buy them is another six months of life support, funded by taxpayers, who already don’t buy the products Detroit makes, with some salaries and benefits for line workers costing more than $75 per hour.

Let them file bankruptcy and reorganize. Sure it will hurt, but, as has been shown with the airlines, healthier organizations can emerge.

Auto unions should be taking proactive measures to promote concessions if they truly are there to protect the workers.

Bob Grimes, Dallas

Who’s buying gas-guzzlers?

We’re blaming the wrong people for the current trouble. Big Three automaker shareholders demand the maximum quarterly dividend, and consumers want the guzzlers. The union guy and the manager were just providing what their bosses wanted.

The company culture that is so maligned really starts with shareholders and customers. So before we bash the Big Three once more about needing money, consumers need to look in the mirror and ask who is really responsible for the problem.

Jeff Robinson, Richardson

Cut down on dealerships

Re: "Dividing the bailout - Carmakers, small banks compete for rescue funds Arlington mayor among those seeking help for auto industry," Wednesday news story.

Arlington’s Mayor Robert Cluck should be embarrassed to plead for our local plant to continue to build the full-size SUVs to deliver to dealers who apparently can’t sell the inventory they have now.

And, we have 60 dealers in the metroplex who can’t sell cars. Would the world tilt off its axis if half the dealerships on Interstate 20 disappeared?

Most are under a single ownership, so if they didn’t sell Chevys, they would sell more Hondas, Toyotas, etc.

John Sweek, Arlington

Let them eat airline food

Isn’t it amazing that the Big Three flew to Washington in private planes to beg for money? At this point, I’d rather give money away on the street corners.

Jane Murphy, Dallas

Humble pie for Congress

Watching the American auto executives testifying before Congress is puzzling. Members of Congress rightly point out the part these executives have played in creating the problems they now face. It’s true that they produced cars and SUVs that were not fuel-efficient.

But Congress exempted most SUVs from the calculation of CAFE standards, thereby removing any limits on their production and sale.

If the American auto industry should go through bankruptcy because of self-inflicted wounds, what should the Congress do to atone for its errors?

John Lovetere, McKinney

Comparing autoworker pay

I am a retired engineer who spent the first 17 years of my career working for the automobile companies in Detroit and then the next 27 years working for an aerospace company.

Union aerospace workers in the metroplex earn, on average, approximately $8 per hour less, do not get as much in pension and medical benefits, don’t get to buy cars at an employee discount and are more skilled than those in the auto industry.

I was not a union member in either industry and have no ax to grind with unions.

With benefits adding from $1,500 to $1,800 to the cost of each new vehicle, no wonder the industry is in such a sad state of affairs.

While union autoworkers did not have a direct hand in the financial situation, they did have a direct effect on the companies’ bottom lines with their overall pay and compensation packages.

Ted Levitt, Alba

Problems were inevitable

The problems of General Motors and Chrysler had to happen when we first permitted foreign-made automobiles and trucks to be imported with a too-low import tax, which made them so competitive with our vehicles.

I am sure the workers in other countries do not have the luxury of higher benefits awarded to our union workers in the U.S.

Earl Nunemaker, Plano

Selling love is Job One

Ineffective marketing causes the Big Three to offer huge rebates to move cars and trucks. There goes the profit.

Lexus markets an experience, not a car. Consider their holiday TV ads with a spouse thrilled to receive a new Lexus with a bow on it.

I recently went to an Infiniti dealer, and, when I went for a test drive, no one came with me. They did not take down my license number or even look at it.

I asked them why. They said trust is part of their business. I drive a Lincoln Town Car. Each of these cars is sold with a $10,000 discount. Ford never established an experience for the buyer. A Lincoln customer is treated pretty much the same as a Ford Focus buyer, perhaps worse. No marketing, no fun, no excitement, no love, no profit. The Big Three need to learn some marketing and sell some love.

Jerry Van Pelt, Frisco

A bailout for the Big 3? 6 letters

by DP Opinion on November 23, 2008

The strong push by Democrats in Congress to bail out U.S. auto companies is misguided. If the companies cannot borrow from the private sector because of their incompetence, the government has no legitimate reason to sink taxpayers’ money into an unsuccessful organization.

Failure of U.S. auto companies need not create an avalanche of thousands of unemployed. There are many foreign-owned auto manufacturing plants in the U.S. that are prospering. The assembly plants of these companies still need to have the suppliers of the same components as U.S. automakers - e.g., tires, glass, steel, plastic. And if those on the assembly line become unemployed, they can apply for similar jobs with auto companies in the U.S. that have taken prudent steps to become economically viable.

Norman Kautsky, Centennial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: "GM chief sings same old wrong," Nov. 16 Al Lewis column.

Al Lewis’ column is right on the money. Thanks for saying what needs to be heard in Congress.

The bailout of the Big Three would not be an "investment" or a "bailout." It would only be a deferral of the inevitable bankruptcy, lengthening the misery, at a very high cost to the taxpayer. The primary beneficiaries, of course, would be the unions.

After the panic passage of the "urgent," ever-changing, ill-defined $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), Congress has drooled at the prospects of getting their hands on that money for their own interests. After authorizing the expenditure of $700 billion we don’t have, the sky is the limit on government spending.

The Big Three need to be allowed reorganization through bankruptcy. It is the only way they can become competitive. The bankrupt airlines are still flying; so would the auto companies still be building cars.

Don R. Sherwood,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should the taxpayers bail out the automakers? The oil companies, with their huge profits, should bail them out. For decades, they were the ones that made mega-billions off of the automakers’ overpriced gas-guzzlers. It’s time for them to give back and give the taxpayers a break.

My name is John Q. Public and I approved this message.

Ed Cullington,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: "No blank check for automakers," Nov. 12 editorial.

Thank you for questioning the recent proposed Detroit bailout. You were right in saying that it would be better for the Big Three to declare bankruptcy first, because that is the only way they can rid themselves of the bloated union contracts they have. Can anyone believe that GM is still being forced to pay workers for doing nothing given the present precarious financial condition of the company? The UAW "jobs bank" forces this upon them. For decades, the automakers have been held hostage by too-powerful unions, literally being forced to pay excessive wages and gold-plated benefits. I worked my way through college in the ’60s at a paper mill in west Michigan, earning the princely sum of $2.09 per hour. My friends who worked in eastern Michigan at auto plants received $4.40 per hour for similar unskilled work - more than twice as much. The only difference was that they were covered by the UAW.

At one point, I worked for Ford. The benefits were unbelievably good. They don’t call GM "Generous Motors" for nothing! Taxpayers should not have to be on the hook for this kind of excess.

Bob Waber, Boulder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an interesting juxtaposition on your editorial page on Nov. 12: Mike Keefe’s cartoon depicting the Big Three automakers as dinosaurs and the Post editorial blaming the UAW for auto industry troubles. Let me see if I understand: GM, Ford and Chrysler continued to focus on manufacturing fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks despite rising crude oil prices and reports of global warming - trends that have been apparent for the last decade - and yet their failure is the result of their workers’ pensions and health care?

This is yet another pathetic example of The Post’s union bashing. Certainly, as you say, automakers should not get a blank check from the government, and probably generous pensions are a factor in their difficulties. But let’s put the blame where it belongs. The workers were not in charge; they weren’t making decisions about company direction. No, automakers should not get a blank check; let’s make sure there are conditions for any assistance they get - conditions that compel them to revolutionize the way they make cars. Let them give us what they should have given us more than 30 years ago - clean, efficient, green vehicles. We just might buy them; wouldn’t that be great?

Sarah McGregor, Denver

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about this for a bailout for the U.S. automakers: a government programs to give vouchers to people to buy cars?

It would work something like this: Anyone who has a vehicle with more than 150,000 miles would be eligible to buy a new car from a U.S. automaker - Ford, GM or Chrysler. They could get a $10,000 voucher to be co-signed by an auto dealership if they bought a new car that cost no more than $25,000 and got at least 30 miles per gallon.

That would get a lot of old gas-guzzlers off the roads, spur the sales of fuel-efficient cars, pump money into the automakers and help people who can’t get credit to buy cars. The oversight could be as simple as affidavits attesting to mileage, cost of new cars and ownership.

Sounds too simple to work? Maybe simplicity is what we need now.

Richard Bangs,