Topic: Without concessions, Chrysler may close Canadian plants

[Erik]

Always figured that the Caravan and jeep would be good additions to the GM stable. Only really solid things in the Mopar stable. (300 is a great car, but getting old. Like the Challenger, but it is a nice niche product, not something to build a company on.)

[toolatecrew]

I hate the tone Chrysler used in more than one occasion. I find $2.3B way too much to save 8000 Canadian workers. The government could use the money to assist the laidoff workers one way or another.

it's 100 000 jobs including the indirect jobs.

its around 30 000 direct jobs if you include the dealers, and plants create lots of indirect jobs.. suppliers, contractors, and all the service jobs around them.

Chrysler is not talking about pulling out of selling cars in Canada. NO mention of that. They aren't closing dealers as a result of any of this. They are talking about PRODUCTION. They will continue to sell cars in Canada as long as they are able. They just will build them somewhere else and that is fine

[My Old Buick]

I"ll Bet VW is shittin bricks now...lol.. I guess they'll build the Routan in St Louis....Interesting times we're in. Tommy should'nt have done a public threat, it just turns people against you especially during these times...

[Erik]

I hate the tone Chrysler used in more than one occasion. I find $2.3B way too much to save 8000 Canadian workers. The government could use the money to assist the laidoff workers one way or another.

it's 100 000 jobs including the indirect jobs.

its around 30 000 direct jobs if you include the dealers, and plants create lots of indirect jobs.. suppliers, contractors, and all the service jobs around them.

Chrysler is not talking about pulling out of selling cars in Canada. NO mention of that. They aren't closing dealers as a result of any of this. They are talking about PRODUCTION. They will continue to sell cars in Canada as long as they are able. They just will build them somewhere else and that is fine

True enough.
But with all the indirect jobs (anyone seen all the trucks loaded with 300's and Chargers driving through Toronto regularly), the job loss impact is MUCH higher than 8000.

[Schmengie]

 If LaSorda tried this kind of blackmail out on the street he'd be thrown in jail. To hell with him and his band of corporate thugs. I work damned hard for my money and I don't want a single penny wasted on them.

[toolatecrew]

I hate the tone Chrysler used in more than one occasion. I find $2.3B way too much to save 8000 Canadian workers. The government could use the money to assist the laidoff workers one way or another.

it's 100 000 jobs including the indirect jobs.

its around 30 000 direct jobs if you include the dealers, and plants create lots of indirect jobs.. suppliers, contractors, and all the service jobs around them.

Chrysler is not talking about pulling out of selling cars in Canada. NO mention of that. They aren't closing dealers as a result of any of this. They are talking about PRODUCTION. They will continue to sell cars in Canada as long as they are able. They just will build them somewhere else and that is fine

True enough.
But with all the indirect jobs (anyone seen all the trucks loaded with 300's and Chargers driving through Toronto regularly), the job loss impact is MUCH higher than 8000.

Is it higher than 8000 ..yes. How much higher is very debatable. Especially on the supplier side. Its well documented that most suppliers are shared by all the Auto Makers. Chrysler is not the biggest. Their production levels have been falling for quite some time so they have been buying less parts.

The promise of "keeping 20% of production" in canada is very misleading.

March 4th

US automaker Chrysler announced Wednesday it is eliminating a shift at its Windsor, Ontario minivan assembly plant, leaving 1,200 people jobless as sales of its iconic people-mover continue to sag.

They just chopped 1200 jibs. They could chop 1000s more jobs even while still keeping their 20% promise. They promised to keep production numbers NOT JOBS.

Chrysler has since sold 12.5 million minivans worldwide, but competition has eaten away at its market share, now at 44 percent in the United States and 58 percent in Canada.

Their share is deteriorating and it will only get worse.

This year, it plans to eliminate an additional 100,000 units, cut costs by 700 million dollars and lay off 3,000 more workers.

By the end of 2009, Chrysler will have eliminated seven models from its product lineup, it said.

Their current production Capacity is about 4 M.

So 20% is 800,000 vehicles.

That number is GOING to fall. There is absolutley no doubt it will fall. As that number falls the number of jobs falls. That 2.3 B to save 8000 direct jobs is a mirage. Buy the middle of the year it could easily be HALF that number of jobs.

[gosteelerz]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

[Patate]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

The problem in the auto industry at the moment is overcapacity.  No one wants an extra plant.

Toolatecrew, yep you are right it does not include dealers.  Unless there is an effect on the Canadian sales, since Chrysler would be seen as a bad company.  I say they should take care of the market they own, and the Canadian one, along with a few south American markets, are the only ones. 

Chrysler is a big player in Canada.  In Montreal, wherever you turn you'll see a Caliber, a Caravan or a Ram.  Except the Civic, no other companies are that present, not even Toyota.

[Trainman]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

Chrysler will just keep that in litigation for so long it will be worth nothing by the end of it.  Assuming they are still around to fight CRA of course   

[carcrazy]

Isn't CRA helping itself from the money they would otherwise reimburse to Chrysler? I think the article said that, on top of the $500 Million lien on the Brampton plant, they also put a hold on some $300 Million they were suppose to give back to Chrysler.
CRA would be one institution I wouldn't want to upset.

[toolatecrew]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

The problem in the auto industry at the moment is overcapacity.  No one wants an extra plant.

Toolatecrew, yep you are right it does not include dealers.  Unless there is an effect on the Canadian sales, since Chrysler would be seen as a bad company.  I say they should take care of the market they own, and the Canadian one, along with a few south American markets, are the only ones. 

Chrysler is a big player in Canada.  In Montreal, wherever you turn you'll see a Caliber, a Caravan or a Ram.  Except the Civic, no other companies are that present, not even Toyota.

Chrysler sales are down abvout 35% over last year. Having them pull their manufcaturing out of canada isn't going to make much more difference. None of the top 10 selling vehicles in Canada are manufactured by chrysler PERIOD let alone in Canada. The idea that people will punish a manufacturer becuase they stop producing vehicles in Canada is unproven and in my opinion overated.

Most people have no idea where the car they buy is made. WHile there must be some I don't know any people who say "I'm going to chose model X over Y becuase the maufacturer builds more/any cars in Canada.

[Patate]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

The problem in the auto industry at the moment is overcapacity.  No one wants an extra plant.

Toolatecrew, yep you are right it does not include dealers.  Unless there is an effect on the Canadian sales, since Chrysler would be seen as a bad company.  I say they should take care of the market they own, and the Canadian one, along with a few south American markets, are the only ones. 

Chrysler is a big player in Canada.  In Montreal, wherever you turn you'll see a Caliber, a Caravan or a Ram.  Except the Civic, no other companies are that present, not even Toyota.

Chrysler sales are down abvout 35% over last year. Having them pull their manufcaturing out of canada isn't going to make much more difference. None of the top 10 selling vehicles in Canada are manufactured by chrysler PERIOD let alone in Canada. The idea that people will punish a manufacturer becuase they stop producing vehicles in Canada is unproven and in my opinion overated.

Most people have no idea where the car they buy is made. WHile there must be some I don't know any people who say "I'm going to chose model X over Y becuase the maufacturer builds more/any cars in Canada.

The Ram and Grand Caravan ARE in the top 10, of that I'm sure.

When the newspaper headlines say "Chrysler to leave Canada if demands are not met" (or something like that) IS bad press.  Which vehicle would you buy? a car made by that company or a car made by that green japanese company that every sell-out journalist speak highly of? thought so.

[toolatecrew]

My understanding is that our taxman has lien on the Bramalea plant.  If they leave Canada without paying the 1/2 billion back, don't we get to own that plant?  If so, could we not lease out the plant to one of their competitors for little or no money?

I could be wrong on this so feel free to correct me.

The problem in the auto industry at the moment is overcapacity.  No one wants an extra plant.

Toolatecrew, yep you are right it does not include dealers.  Unless there is an effect on the Canadian sales, since Chrysler would be seen as a bad company.  I say they should take care of the market they own, and the Canadian one, along with a few south American markets, are the only ones. 

Chrysler is a big player in Canada.  In Montreal, wherever you turn you'll see a Caliber, a Caravan or a Ram.  Except the Civic, no other companies are that present, not even Toyota.

Chrysler sales are down abvout 35% over last year. Having them pull their manufcaturing out of canada isn't going to make much more difference. None of the top 10 selling vehicles in Canada are manufactured by chrysler PERIOD let alone in Canada. The idea that people will punish a manufacturer becuase they stop producing vehicles in Canada is unproven and in my opinion overated.

Most people have no idea where the car they buy is made. WHile there must be some I don't know any people who say "I'm going to chose model X over Y becuase the maufacturer builds more/any cars in Canada.

The Ram and Grand Caravan ARE in the top 10, of that I'm sure.

When the newspaper headlines say "Chrysler to leave Canada if demands are not met" (or something like that) IS bad press.  Which vehicle would you buy? a car made by that company or a car made by that green japanese company that every sell-out journalist speak highly of? thought so.

Should have said top 10 selling CARS.

Nice bias with the sell out journalist comment.

The headline regarding Chrysler makes me no less likley to buy a car from them than yesterday or last year. I wouldn't buy one before wouldn't buy one now. I don't buy my cars based on where they are assembled (nor do most people). I buy them on the way they drive, quality, features price. Where they are built or if the company pulls out is so far down the list in a purchase decsion its meaningless.

[ovr50]

Overcapacity has become a fact of life for the global auto industry. There is not the demand (even after this financial crisis is over) for all the production capacity in the world now. Some makers are doomed to fail. Additionally, in NA, the "boomers" kept a lot of the industry going thru the MiniVan craze of the 80s, and the SUV craze of the past 10 years. Many boomers are at/reaching retirement and will not need 2 or 3 cars per family, 1 will do. Furthermoe, ppl out of work will cut back on their vehicles. All of this adds up to overcapacity.

Of the NA makers, Chrysler is the one that should fail, in a game of survival of the fittest.

[Erik]

Should have said top 10 selling CARS.

Nice bias with the sell out journalist comment.

The headline regarding Chrysler makes me no less likley to buy a car from them than yesterday or last year. I wouldn't buy one before wouldn't buy one now. I don't buy my cars based on where they are assembled (nor do most people). I buy them on the way they drive, quality, features price. Where they are built or if the company pulls out is so far down the list in a purchase decsion its meaningless.

So, your comment on your potential purchase of a Chrysler is pointless and completely irrelevant.

Are you just speaking for yourself about where a car being built is meaningless, or do you figure the whole world thinks that way. Sure as heck ain't the Japanese or Koreans who think that way (<10% imports and 5% import sales respectively).

[Careener]

The CDN gov should backstop another company to buy out the Minivan plant. A much better use of public funds imo.

[toolatecrew]

Should have said top 10 selling CARS.

Nice bias with the sell out journalist comment.

The headline regarding Chrysler makes me no less likley to buy a car from them than yesterday or last year. I wouldn't buy one before wouldn't buy one now. I don't buy my cars based on where they are assembled (nor do most people). I buy them on the way they drive, quality, features price. Where they are built or if the company pulls out is so far down the list in a purchase decsion its meaningless.

So, your comment on your potential purchase of a Chrysler is pointless and completely irrelevant.

Are you just speaking for yourself about where a car being built is meaningless, or do you figure the whole world thinks that way. Sure as heck ain't the Japanese or Koreans who think that way (<10% imports and 5% import sales respectively).

Who made you king to decide what is pointless?

I responded to this which was a direct reponse to my quoted post.

Which vehicle would you buy? a car made by that company or a car made by that green japanese company that every sell-out journalist speak highly of? thought so.

I was asked a question ..I responded. That's the point.

I don't care how Japan or Korea thinks. I care how Canadians think since we are discussing Chrysler pulling out of CANADA and the impact on CANADA. Your comment obout Korea and Japan is POINTLESS.

But lets do a survey just for fun.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,61560.0.html

[Patate]

Should have said top 10 selling CARS.

Nice bias with the sell out journalist comment.

The headline regarding Chrysler makes me no less likley to buy a car from them than yesterday or last year. I wouldn't buy one before wouldn't buy one now. I don't buy my cars based on where they are assembled (nor do most people). I buy them on the way they drive, quality, features price. Where they are built or if the company pulls out is so far down the list in a purchase decsion its meaningless.

So, your comment on your potential purchase of a Chrysler is pointless and completely irrelevant.

Are you just speaking for yourself about where a car being built is meaningless, or do you figure the whole world thinks that way. Sure as heck ain't the Japanese or Koreans who think that way (<10% imports and 5% import sales respectively).

Who made you king to decide what is pointless?

I responded to this which was a direct reponse to my quoted post.

Which vehicle would you buy? a car made by that company or a car made by that green japanese company that every sell-out journalist speak highly of? thought so.

I was asked a question ..I responded. That's the point.

I don't care how Japan or Korea thinks. I care how Canadians think since we are discussing Chrysler pulling out of CANADA and the impact on CANADA. Your comment obout Korea and Japan is POINTLESS.

But lets do a survey just for fun.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/topic,61560.0.html

To make a relevant survey, you have to take a random sample.

Asking in a forum where most people drive imported vehicles isn't really a valid method.

Consider this: if country of assembly didn't matter to most people, how come Germany's main car sellers are German companies, while France's main car sellers are French companies.  I could go on (Italy-Fiat), but you understand what I'm saying.

And buddy, Toyota is getting LOTS of postive press, which are mostly extrapolation "sp" of the Prius's image.  You don't hear journalists mention that Toyota has just released their most gaz guzzling pickup yet, while being an inferior product to the more frugal domestic competition. Nope, you don't hear that.  You hear about the Yaris and the Prius, while the sentence you hear the most about the Domestics is "they focused too much on SUVs". That IS bias. 

Evidently, I do not claim to be objective.  I am pro-Domestic because they are the companies that employ the most Canadians, this coming from a Quebecer who lives in a province where the auto industry is almost absent.  I support Chrysler the most out of the big 3, even though I am fully conscious that the Daimler era's products are inferior to some of their competitor.  So I would not buy most Chrysler products, but I would certainly consider a Ford product, or a GM product once they'll enter Chapter 11. Before that, it would be giving money to a company that does not have the appropriate management to invest it in our country's future, because YES, the domestic auto industry has to be part of our future. 

Nothing pisses me off more than a Canadian (or an American) that wishes the Big 3 downfall.  Don't be fooled by those plants the Imports put up here, they do not come with all the domestic suppliers that the Big 3 does.

[toolatecrew]

To make a relevant survey, you have to take a random sample.

Asking in a forum where most people drive imported vehicles isn't really a valid method.

Consider this: if country of assembly didn't matter to most people, how come Germany's main car sellers are German companies, while France's main car sellers are French companies.  I could go on (Italy-Fiat), but you understand what I'm saying.

1. How do you know most people who post here drive "forigen car" or are you just making an assumption that supports your theory.
2. Even if it were true the two higest selling CARS in Canada Civic and Corolla are produced by forigen Manufacturers who build the cars in Canada.
3.Why do Forigen Manufactures hold 49% share in the US and BIg 3 only 43%? There goes your theory out the window.

You are implying cause effect that isn't there. People buy cars from a company that manfactures cars in that country THERFORE country of manufacture is the main driver in car choce? What kind of crap logic is that?

Are you proposing country pof manufacture is a more important criteria than price? Didn't think so.

The survey results are overwhelming so far. Over 70% say where the car is made is NO factor in the car they buy. People don't care for the most part

[Patate]

To make a relevant survey, you have to take a random sample.

Asking in a forum where most people drive imported vehicles isn't really a valid method.

Consider this: if country of assembly didn't matter to most people, how come Germany's main car sellers are German companies, while France's main car sellers are French companies.  I could go on (Italy-Fiat), but you understand what I'm saying.

1. How do you know most people who post here drive "forigen car" or are you just making an assumption that supports your theory.
2. Even if it were true the two higest selling CARS in Canada Civic and Corolla are produced by forigen Manufacturers who build the cars in Canada.
3.Why do Forigen Manufactures hold 49% share in the US and BIg 3 only 43%? There goes your theory out the window.

You are implying cause effect that isn't there. People buy cars from a company that manfactures cars in that country THERFORE country of manufacture is the main driver in car choce? What kind of crap logic is that?

Are you proposing country pof manufacture is a more important criteria than price? Didn't think so.

The survey results are overwhelming so far. Over 70% say where the car is made is NO factor in the car they buy. People don't care for the most part

Your survey isn't worth anything, don't even quote it, it is a joke.

1.Well no actually it's not really an assumption because I looked at what posters in your joke-of-a-survey thread wrote as " what I'm driving", and apart from a 2001 Venture, and a Cadillac SRX, I've not seen one single domestic car.  If the big 3 has around 50% market share... or let's say 40%, im in a generous mood today so i'll give you 40%, the sample is not representing the actual population.  No offense toolatecrew, but you should take a methodology class, you can't simply spew a survey like that and consider it good.  You CAN mention however that most people in the Canadiandriver forums don't care about where their car is made, and even there it wouldn't be a flawless survey because you didn't randomly picked the people who answered. 

2. Well thank you for proving my point, the Civics and Corollas are good sellers and it's caused by a good number of factors.  You'll agree with me that when the dealer tells you that they are made here in Canada, the customer could like it.  However, I agree with you that there are other factors, the two most important being the badge and the reputation that comes with it.  Corollas have almost always been pretty reliable cars, moreso than the Cavalier or the Neon.  In 2009, the reliability and durability of the 1995 model is a higher factor when it comes to buying the car for lots of customers than the 2009 model.  Of course, Consumer Reports could give the 2009 model a "recommended" award, which is stupid since you can't look at reliability in only 1 year.  This is why I don't trust JD Power or Consumer Reports.  The difference between the  "reliable" and "not reliable" is so small that it's not even worth mentioning. 

As for the mechanical parts, a Cobalt XFE destroys a Civic or a Corolla.  It is the most full efficient, it has 159 hp, and it is pretty fast. The Ecotec engines have proven to be a lot more durable than the oil-drinking civic engines (partially because you don't have to be a 5000 rpm to get torque).  Also, it is the least expensive.  Why then isn't it the best selling car? well, toolatecrew, it's because customers aren't rational.  Buying from a domestic company because it is one is not rational, and neither is buying a car because it has a Toyota or Honda badge. 

3. Do I even need to mention how many immigrants there are in the US?  Do I even have to mention how many people in California don't give a damn about what's happening in Michigan? 
Give me how many market share the Big 3 has in Michigan or in the surrounding states.  People there buys American cars because they SEE how not encouraging your auto companies can destroy an economy.