Could The Detroit Recovery Plan Really As Simple As Merging In To One?

Could The Detroit Recovery Plan Really As Simple As Merging In To One?

So this is how it ends for Detroit? After more than a century of putting the world on wheels, the American auto industry collapses amid squabbling over clueless CEOs and their private jets? Not necessarily. There is another way forward: the Big Three could become the Big One.

The notion of three powerful U.S. automakers is already an anachronism. These companies are husks of the mighty institutions that once ruled the road. Now they control less than half the U.S. auto market and will lose a combined $30 billion this year. Collectively they are burning through nearly $6 billion a month, and General Motors and Chrysler warn that by the end of the year they'll be broke. They'll head back to Washington this week (ideally by car pool) to beg for a bailout.

But Detroit actually has parts worth saving. Melding them into a single entity could buff up its best brands, like Chevy, Ford and Cadillac, while leaving the clunkers (Pontiac, Mercury, Saturn, et al.) by the side of the road. It would take a healthy dose of Nietzsche's "creative destruction," but that's preferable to total destruction, especially when you're talking about an industry that supports 2.5 million jobs. Other major American industries have undertaken calamitous consolidations to survive. Why should Detroit be spared from market forces?

Like autos, foreign competition laid waste to the American steel industry. Beginning in 1986, more than 35 American steel makers went bankrupt. In 2002, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross agreed to buy up bankrupt LTV Steel, setting off a merger frenzy that saw 17 companies shrink down to three, while financial results reversed from a $1.1 billion loss in 2003 to a $6.6 billion profit in 2004. Ross used the bankruptcy courts to renegotiate labor contracts and hire back a fraction of the workers.
 


Read Article

EL34EL34 - 12/1/2008 12:56:18 PM
+2 Boost
This happend because of those darn CEO jets :-(


Agent009Agent009 - 12/1/2008 1:47:51 PM
+2 Boost
LOL! I think it may be more complicated than that....


ThierryHenry14ThierryHenry14 - 12/1/2008 7:11:20 PM
+2 Boost
just a little...haha


ThierryHenry14ThierryHenry14 - 12/1/2008 1:23:05 PM
+5 Boost
the easiest way to get rid of the problem is to consolidate line-up. who needs 5 different brands that makes the same sedans.

Just consolidate Ford, Lincoln, Mercury products under one umbrella.

Same goes for GM and Chysler. Who needs a 10 different SUVs with almost identical underpinnings from Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep? just consolidate...


NItePhireNItePhire - 12/1/2008 1:44:20 PM
+4 Boost
NO


DexDiamondsDexDiamonds - 12/1/2008 1:57:15 PM
+5 Boost
I never understood Mercury or GMC where the entire lineup consist of rebadges.


BillBill - 12/1/2008 2:26:54 PM
+3 Boost
It used to be an efficient means of selling the consumer a more expensive "Ford" and a pricier "GMC" respectively. But at a certain point the consumer becomes smarter and doesn't fall for this scheme anymore.


WillisWillis - 12/2/2008 10:47:39 AM
+1 Boost
"a pricier "GMC"


Bill, don't you mean "Chevy"?


SteedPubSteedPub - 12/1/2008 2:44:38 PM
0 Boost
And this NewsWeek journalist calls the auto CEO's clueless?

Wow


chewychewy - 12/1/2008 3:02:54 PM
+3 Boost
You will end up with a very small Detroit. If you stop selling a Pontiac G6, you are not going to add the same amount of sales to the Malibu. Same thing with the Fusion.

Basically (not real numbers)

5,000 Pontiac G6
10,000 Ford Fusion
15,000 Chevy Malibu will not turn into 30,000 Chevy Malibu if Pontiac and Ford dissapeared.

For this to happen you would need some incredible domestic loyalty, if this was the case, then Detroit would not be in trouble today.


ThierryHenry14ThierryHenry14 - 12/1/2008 7:10:28 PM
+2 Boost
I agree, it will not turn into 30000 malibu, but it will cut production cost, thus, profitability may increase, and quality may increase as well, with more resources going to one car, rather than 3.


AmazonPrinceIS350AmazonPrinceIS350 - 12/1/2008 3:39:12 PM
0 Boost
I say do it!!

The Big 3 now have an opportunity to start fresh with new interior and exterior designs as well as new modes that people want ........maybe Carlos Goshn can become their mentor


100tnega100tnega - 12/1/2008 5:14:18 PM
+1 Boost
Hmmm... interesting.

To take it one step further, perhaps they could rethink the notion of transportation, potentially leveling the playing field and changing the game.

I like your gusto.


91z4me91z4me - 12/1/2008 6:57:37 PM
+1 Boost
They do start w/ new interior and exterior designs, roughly every 3 years, and new chassis every 5 years or so. Just like everyone else.


WorldofLuxuryWorldofLuxury - 12/1/2008 7:32:06 PM
-1 Boost
I'm gonna miss some of the cars though );


XYZZXYZZ - 12/2/2008 2:52:37 AM
+2 Boost
like it or not, this may well be the final solution to detroit's woes.

look at how the british motor industry shrunk and consolidated to stay alive. only the strongest brands survived, and EVEN THEN, found independent operations impossible. most (all?) ended up being bought by foreign companies.

the NAMES of the best brit cars still live on. and some are even still built in factories in england. (which only happen to be owned by furriners.)




sstainbasstainba - 12/2/2008 10:20:15 AM
+1 Boost
FYI, the title of this article needs some work. you forgot a verb - "be" and "In To" is one word. try this:

"Could The Detroit Recovery Plan Really Be As Simple As Merging Into One?"

and really, it's better form not to capitalize demonstratives or prepositions at all. :-D


dumpstydumpsty - 12/2/2008 11:25:48 AM
+1 Boost
Anything's possible!

However, I don't see Ford & GM brands coexisting in that type of arrangement. Of course, many legendary models may disappear, but it would be safe to say that their "strongest" models would survive. Corvette, Mustang, Grd Cherokee, F-150, CTS, etc would be safe would even continue to be designed to offer some "feel" of competition, but the other ho-hum models would be phased-out, combined, or replaced to make use of as few platforms as possible.

One US auto giant would be able to create a "real" luxury car division devoted to only developing and making luxury vehicles. Similarly, a real commercial vehicle division devoid of sister-models from the mainstream brand can really shine in the industrial market.

Heck, the 1 US giant would probably look more like Toyota and could benefit from having a sub-entry-level division for cars like Scion, Ka, and Aveo.


mercuryguymercuryguy - 12/2/2008 1:28:26 PM
0 Boost
Inovation is the only way.

Dual Clutch transmissions, Diesel and Hybrid.

GM has 60 models that all look alike, yet not 1 Diesel Business Sedan. Not 1 SUV with an enclosed cargo area or a gargo door tall enough to fit a standard washing machine. What is the point of a SUV with carpeting everware? Pickups are more utilitarian, but everything in the bed is exposed to the weather. Truck Caps are not heated and fog up in the winter.

Surely somone can build a SUV with a Rino liner and a Tall Tailgate that can fit real world items with putting things on the top of a folded down seat. Something that has a roof to keep things dry.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC