Put Your Hands Up for Detroit

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Everything either grows or dies. As The Big Two Point Five face the New Year, they’d do well to remember this. All the talk about “market share stabilization,” “matching production to demand,” and “right-sizing” is merely an attempt to obscure the simple fact that they’re dying. I know: that’s a pretty depressing sentiment for automakers still staggering about with an SUV-sized hangover. But death is a normal part of life; a precursor to rebirth. As 2006 dies, 2007 beckons. Here’s a guide to what Detroit faces– must face– in the year ahead.

This is the year that Toyota will supplant Ford as America’s Number Two automaker and replace General Motors as the world’s Number One. These two milestones will provide incontrovertible proof that The Big Two Point Five’s day is over (at least for now). The damage flowing from that increasingly obvious fact will be both subtle and, ultimately, devastating. For one thing, the best and brightest have a natural aversion to working on a sinking ship. BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai will continue to cherry pick the industry’s top management, designers, engineers, production experts and marketers. The little discussed Detroit brain drain will exact a heavy toll.

Secondly, as Mr. Neundorf has written, the rearranging of America’s automotive pantheon will end the average consumer’s ignorance of Detroit’s distress. The media buzzards have been circling The Big Two Point Five for some time, refraining from swooping down because of their collective ignorance, [misplaced] respect and simple disinterest. Once Toyota punts Ford, GM and Chrysler down the sales ladder, the 2.5’s anguish will become carrion feeder catnip. How did the foreigners kick America’s ass again? What does it mean for our country’s industrial base? Although reporters will focus on turnarounds and comebacks– at least initially– the cumulative effect will corrode consumer confidence.

This is also the year that Detroit must finally shuck the union straightjacket– and won’t. Analysts who predict that the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) will come to the negotiating table with “a new sense of realism” (or some such set of code words indicating a supposed readiness to take a hit for the team) will be proven wrong. Once again, there will be some kind of media-friendly slight-of-hand. Last year, GM’s workers “gave up” a $1 an hour wage hike– which actually went straight to their health care compensation. They also “gave back” health care benefits in exchange for a not-as-well-publicized $3b health care VEBA. This is the new template for Detroit labor relations.

By topping-up their coffers, GM and Ford have virtually guaranteed a continuation of union intransigence. In fact, management happy talk about incipient turnarounds makes it highly unlikely that they’ll do the only thing they can do to wrest control of their companies back from the UAW: face down a UAW strike. Wagoner (GM) and Mulally (Ford) have a long history of playing ball with the unions. They’re less likely to exercise the nuclear option against the UAW than the US is against the UAE. Chrysler’s German owners are also strike-aversive; what with the need to keep the company solvent enough to sell. So it’ll be [less and less] business as usual.

In ’07, The Big Two Point Five will all feel the cash burn. If the economy slows down or gas prices go way up, it’ll be a fully-fledged conflagration. Meanwhile and in any case, the biggest threat to their existence is the same one that’s been nibbling away at them for the last three decades: new and/or improved products. We’ve already written about the new Toyota Tundra’s impact on The Big Two Point Five’s mission critical pickup truck margins. The transplants are also set to launch new or improved cars, crossovers and hybrids, and refreshes aplenty. The gap between the Big 2.5’s products and those of their competitors’ is not likely to narrow significantly this year.

Once again, the only real hope for The Big Two Point Five is cataclysmic change. Given their deep pockets, I don’t think Ford or Chrysler will file in ‘07, but there is a chance that circumstances (and their own ongoing incompetence) will force GM to face the inevitable. It could come from any number of different angles: a supplier “run on the bank,” a severe economic downturn, a tipping point-style loss of market share, a UAW strike, SEC criminal charges leading to chaos, a combination of these factors or something unexpected. If GM goes down, the ripple effect on suppliers will drag Ford under, and then Chrysler.

For The Big Two Point Five, ’07 will be a year much like the last, typified by denial, obfuscation and compromise. TTAC will be here chronicling the story. Rest assured we do so knowing that Americans produce some of the world’s best automobiles. One way or another, sooner or later, The Big Two Point Five will have to recreate themselves, to rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 110 comments
  • Finger Finger on Jan 04, 2007

    From Automotive News... Ford CEO Alan Mulally and U.S. sales chief Cisco Codina told dealers and journalists Wednesday, Jan. 3, that the Fusion beat the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry in a consumer research event. Car and Driver magazine's business unit conducted the event in mid-December, a source said. Ford plans to tout the Fusion's win over the Camry and Accord in the ad campaign. The automaker will provide details to journalists and dealers today.

  • Lansen Lansen on Jan 09, 2007

    I really have to see a shrink about my masochistic tendency to sub to lists like this.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next