Skip navigation

Cover story

How Walter's dream became a nightmare

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Nimble, brash, profitable. Words that were once used to describe Chrysler until a disastrous union with a foreign suitor sowed the seeds of its destruction. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. david t from Canada writes: Come on Canada Let's make this month the WORST MONTH for CHRYSLER.
    Let's go for 100 drop in sales for May.


    Pass the message on
    together we will send a strong message to the government and Chrysler that we do not support bailouts and we do not support chrysler products

  2. Will Farnaby from writes: Bailing out Chrysler with the money of Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer is a disgrace: this fossil is defunct... couldn't our billions be better spent trying to engineer a successful, sustainable future?

    (And yes, J. Michael, maybe even some sense of community, instead of a culture of shite.)
  3. sd c from oshawa, Canada writes: I'm Joe Public and I don't care who's fault it is. I just want my neighbour to lose his job cause he makes more money than me.
  4. Peter vliegende hollander from Calgary Foothills, Canada writes: Key issue: Chrysler's last good product was the minivan. After that the design well ran dry. No take-over did help that! So, don't put all blame outside the company.

    As to fiddling while Rome burned, wasn't that the equivalent of bankruptcy by the state? Rome arose out of the ashes. Interestingly no one had the guts to try that again.
    Our gov't anyone??
  5. Jeff S from Canada writes: Chysler's design engineers must be literally blind.

    Who could design cars that looked so ugly.

    And then change the model every couple of years that just drove depreciation on older models into the dirt.

    If you buy a product from this company you have noone to blame but yourself.

    The nerve of this author to blame it on Diamler. Outrageous.

    Buy a Ford. I'm trading in my Infiniti on a 2009 F150 4x4.
  6. Philosopher Cowboy Out West in MB or SK from LaSalle, Canada writes: For the first time in my life I just ordered a new Ford truck rather than a new Dodge (3 year turn over cycle). I originally decided to purchase a Ford due to their lack of participation at the public hand-out trough ala Chrysler & GM. And although I realize there will be very little impact on dealerships and warranties with this move by Chrysler, I am gratified I bought a Ford this time round.

    My 'old' Dodge truck is worth shyte right now. I doubt it will be worth much at all when I go to sell it in a month.

    Dodge? Ford? GM? All I know is for all the hub-bub about how bad things are and what great deals are out there, UH-HUH. Price out a new diesel 4x4 and then tell me how wonderful the deals are compared to years past.

    This whole bail-out sham is a damned farce and shame. Completely screwing employees and customers. If only I could get past my bias and buy a Toyota truck . . . . .
  7. dave charleston from toronto, Canada writes: stop crying and reminiscing about the past. Consumers preferences change in all industries not just cars.
  8. dave charleston from toronto, Canada writes: Buy Honda and Toyota, keep Ontarian s working and the province strong.
  9. Paul G from Canada writes:
    dave charleston from toronto, Canada writes: 'Buy Honda and Toyota, keep Ontarian s working and the province strong. '


    That big assembly plant near the lake on Ford drive in Oakville, the one with the huge Ford emblem... isn't that a Ford factory right here in Ontario?

    We bought a new vehicle last autumn after we checked out each of the big 3 and the GM / Ford dealers knew absolutely squat about their own product. Next time we'll check several Ford dealers to find one that knows their stuff.

    I've never bought a Ford but they should be rewarded for staying off huge amounts of taxpayer handouts.

  10. Kevin Brown from Toronto, Canada writes: Its incorrect to state that Chryslers problems began with the merger with Daimler-Benz. This merger produced some of the best looking American vehicles of recent time (e.g. the 300, Charger, Magnum, PT Cruiser) These products were far better than anything created by the 'Dream Team' that came before. The problem is these cars were introduced into a very different and much more competitive marketplace filled with Asian and European Brands that were better looking inside and out. When Daimler-Benz bailed out Chrysler was taken over by Wall Street Bankers who drove the company into the ground.
  11. simple complexity from Toronto, Canada writes: This whole thing is so completely sickening. During the early 1980's, Continental Bank of Canada fell because of 'liquidity problems' (Northland Bank went bankrupt) and Lloyds Bank saved the Canadian banking system with the eventual evolutionof HSBC. The Bronfmans probably managed a Continental Bank misfortune from what should have been a simple mess. Today we're seeing a D3 mess being turned over to the taxpayers...we as Canadians are sooooo gullible...we really have no idea how to respond to our government . Can anybody read any sense into this bailout?
  12. simple complexity from Toronto, Canada writes: One more thing...vitually every poll concludes that the poll respondents are NOT in favour of bailing out the D3 but the governments just keep on going ahead plowing money into the D3. This is a very dangerous situation that in older times would lead to civil revolution.
  13. simple complexity from Toronto, Canada writes: Very interesting...if you go back to Karl Marx who opposed Hobbs and Locke..Marx theorized that the cyclical nature of the economy would eventually lead to uprising by the workers..the prolitariet (workers) would eventually uprise against the bourgouise (owners). Hobbs believed that natural life was nasty, brutish, poor, short and nasty but Locke beleived in the goodness of men and, hence, life, liberty and property ownership which was the basis of the American Revolution. Marx believed that eventually the Locke model would fail and we are now possibly on the precipice of his theory.
  14. little bear from Canada writes: My Wife and I both liked the designs of he Chrysler cars and van and bought severl of them over the years and regretted each and every purchase.

    Engine failures, transmission failures, wrist pins through cylinder walls and on and on.

    We couild nhot care les what Chrysler does or doesn't do as we will never again purchase anything from them.
  15. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: Let's see... we have one poster denouncing public money going to foreign owned car firms... but... er... Cerberus Capital is based in New York. We have another poster suggesting that Lloyds Bank saved the Canadian banking system in the 1980's. That's rich! Continental Bank of Canada and Northland Bank were no more than pimples in the Canadian financial system whose demise went almost unoticed. But the biggest raspberry tonight goes to the person who claims that Chrysler's downfall is due to the breakdown in the traditional nuclear family.... that one is so off the mark as to be almost looney.

    What are these otherwise good but perhaps not clear-thinking people drinking and/or smoking tonight?
  16. Matthew McKenzie from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Some posters are not on topic here. What the hell does Chrysler's bankruptcy have to do with life in the 1920's? And what does two bank failures in the 1980's and HSBC saving the banking system, (which like another poster said is pretty rich) have to do with Chrysler's bankruptcy?

    I personally think that they should bring back Lee Iacocca! What do you think Lee, one more round?
  17. WOHOO figure it out! from Canada writes: HAHAHAHHAHA ah man this post makes me laugh David N from Toronto, Canada writes

    What are these otherwise good but perhaps not clear-thinking people drinking and/or smoking tonight?
  18. Misery No one from Toronto, Canada writes: We've always had jeeps since '77. The last one a TJ sport has had its problems.
    First year: O2 sensor. Gas line leak, upon inspection there was a bit of yellow tape on the gas line close to the gas tank. Uncovering the tape there was a rust pin hole letting gas leak out.

    The windows are so hard to roll down. Even after getting inside the door and using lots of lube.

    Why did they reverse the door handles on the JT from 97 on. On the YJ the handle opening faced toward the front u just cupped your fingers and pulled very easy.
    Then on the TJ the door handle openings face back so your kinda have to push on the very hard spring loaded leaver with your thumb hooked in somehow.
    After purchasing new 97 TJ (which we still have with 65K on it) we had letters asking us for comments on the new vehicle. None or our concerns were ever answered.

    I mentioned it to one Chrysler dealer and the sales girl said why do u keep buying them then :(

    We over the years became atttached to the Jeep, we are in our '70s now.
    Why do we keep buying them? I guess it's because we like being made fools of.

    We would like to see someone of quality care and considerate take over the jeep line. And Fiat is the one to do that, let the other models go under just let Fiat take over the Jeep. Then we shall see that great vehicle join the many famous vehicles of the past.
  19. S M from Canada writes: 'We could have stayed the course and done what all Japanese companies do, which is build on your own core and do better at it.'

    This sounds like the strategy of the paper industry where I work (in Europe). When times were good in the 90s, execs everywhere used their enormous profits to make their companies more efficient.

    In Europe, they concentrated on improving their processes and invested in new equipment at exisiting plants. In Canada and USA, they bought out other companies and tried to save through economies of scale and synergy and with using their increased market share to bargain with customers and suppliers.

    Bad times come, and the plants in NA are so inefficient, it doesn't matter what your market share is, you can't make profits with them. I'm not saying the auto plants are not efficient, but the execs concentrated on expansion, expansion, expansion, instead of on product and quality of their existing company.
    Maybe a cultural thing? Who's got the biggest .. uh .. market share? Maybe that's why they teach in all those business schools in NA? Seems the rest of the world spends less time on size and more on how to use it..
  20. cnp cnp from Canada writes: just because ford hasent asked for money this time around doesnt change the fact that it has already recieved hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money over the years.the d3 are nothing more than tax subsidized corporate welfare cases and im for boycotting their products.this is just government make work projects for a whiny union and its members
  21. Bryan Getslaughs from Canada writes: Of the so called big three Chrysler was the only without a real global manufacturing presence. It was doomed to fail. Post Iaccoca- Chrysler had some decent product but nothing that really sold out side of the US (and Canada) unless it was re badged import.

    Let it fail - buy up its good assets and let the rest go to rot.
  22. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes:
    Blaming Daimler for this is like ... blaming the hedge funds.

    Oh wait ... some idiot already did that.
  23. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Those who would prefer a Honda or Toyota should remember that their plants were built in Ontario with considerable incentives of your tax money. In helping to finance them, Ontario taxpayers helped finance the demise of the domestic automakers and set up a route for bleeding profits out of Ontario. The point made about Chrysler not being marketable outside of North American is true and is largely due to the lack of reciprocal trade agreements negotiated by, who else, our governments. By allowing and sometimes demanding our governments to interfere in commerce we have created an ugly monster and one has to wonder if Cerberus was so named to keep the devils in or keep the devils out.
  24. cnp cnp from Canada writes: the trade agreements we have in place with asian countries are what keep our farmers working.some monetary incentive to open plants in ontario is understandable and sound also provides consumers in canada with what they want,more options.its a little bit ridiculous though when the d3 and its leech union come back,year after year,looking for hundreds of millions in 'loans' that we have to 'loan' more money to in order to get our initial loans back.corporate welfare
  25. various degrees from Hamilton, Canada writes: David T from Canada writes : Come on Canada lets make this the worst month for Chrysler. BOYCOTT CHRYSLER. Listen David ,why don't you get that loose bolt in your head tightened and shut up. You have been saying this for weeks. Maybe you had a bad experience with Chrysler. You have obviously mistaken us for someone who cares.

    There is more than a good chance Chrysler is finished. Their downfall was teaming up with outside interests and they are doing it again. If l worked for Chrysler l would be updating my resume. Have they not learned by now that their so called partners are there to use Chrysler so they can better their own position and will drop Chrysler in a second if it goes the wrong way. Why drag out the inevitable ?
  26. dave smith from guelph, Canada writes: I own a Chrysler Caravan and a Honda Odyssey. Happy with both, each have their good and bad points (I use the Honda for the family, and the Caravan for work) The Odyssey is arguably better, it handles a bit better, better thought out interior, but then again the Odyssey cost about 10 grand more. But they both break down on occasion. And here's the big difference people don't mention too often: Honda parts cost way more. Ask any mechanic.
  27. Fred Easygo from Canada writes: Where else would the government and CAW find a solution to this collapse, than in the taxpayers pockets. Like most opinions, it represents throwing our good money after bad.
    Amazing though, how Hargrove got installed into the 'Order of Canada' a la Morgenthaler by the GG for his ruthless efforts of 'If the Company cannot afford our demands, let the taxpayer make up the difference', as publicly stated!
  28. Titus Cheeks from London, Canada writes: I think there are 2 basic disadvantages the domestic 3 have in today's economy. They've been around for so long that most people with a drivers licence have owned several of their vehicles and have been disappointed. In business, it's easy to lose a customer, hard to keep a customer and damn near impossible to win back a customer. Additionally, this longevity has created the infamous legacy costs....workers retiring at 50 - 55 and living another 20 to 30 years living off a generous pension (modern medicine contributes of course). The second disadvantage is that now there is much stiffer competition from other manufacturers. Back in the day, the NA 3 had much more market share simply because there were few credible alternatives. They became fat and complacent and gave away the small car market to the competition who have perfected them over the years...patiently waiting for the inevitable spike in oil prices. I don't blame the NA 3 for making SUVs etc. as that is where the profit is/was and was needed to pay for the ever ratcheting up labour and material costs. Now we have many manufacturers, each with many models from which to choose. A consolidation / rationalization of the industry is needed, allowing the weak to fail. Unfortunately, government has intervened likely only prolonging the great expense to the taxpayer. All that money used to support these failing companies will cause job losses in the future general economy as taxpayers have less money to spend in that general economy. If the government thinks that by doing this they will remain in power after the next election....they couldn't be more wrong (imo). Judging by the comments posted on these boards and others, the majority will not vote for them. We need someone with vision from the private sector to make the ultimate sacrifice and get involved in politics since the career politicos are woefully ill equipped. God help us all.
  29. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: The cause of the failure of Chrysler has many to blame, Management, engineers, Unions, Government and the buyers.

    I can guarantee folks like Buzz Hardgrove and his cohorts feel no guilt for their role in the demise of the American Auto Industry.

    Our GREED is the underlaying cause.
  30. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: This is what happens when you dont check on your competition (like VW, Honda, Toyota) they take care of you. I had really hoped that with the merger with Mercedes would have brought a new line up of quality cars and diesel engines on line. Unfortunately nothing came of it except the dodge sprinter. Alfa Romeo, Fiat 500, Diesel engines let us hope the mistake is not repeated. I am in the market for a diesel MB, BMW hell I can wait another year for an Alfa diesel!
  31. Trimmer 905 from rtice, Canada writes: To sd c from hit the nail right on the head.I've never seen so many whiny,petty people in my life.I don't have it,so you can't,either.NYAH,NYAH, NYAH!!Pitifull,just pitifull!!!You people have the foresight of a gnat!!
  32. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau, Canada writes: After reading this one has to wonder why the merger with Fiat will succeed? Mercedes at least had a commercial presence in North-America. Fiat used to quite a while ago, but then they had their own problems including cars that were not very reliable or technologically appealing. Supposedly that has changed, but when is the last time you saw a Fiat on the road here in Canada?

    A last question for anyone who might desire to answer-- With the merger of Mercedes and Chrysler, despite the fact that they both made vehicles, they sold to very different segments of the car buying market. Luxury brands do not usually do main street very well. To me the comment from Mercedes shareholders that merging with Chrysler cheapened the Mercedes brand was telling of the psychology and egos involved, and put the lie to the notion of a marriage of equals that was the original view.
    Clearly it was a bad marriage which failed. Worse yet, creating an asymmetrical power relationship in which one of the parties finds out its position is less than equal, tends to drive talent out of the losing side. Now after being traumatized by its previous marriages, we get to witness Chrysler enter into a new shotgun marriage. Can it possibly work?
  33. APP * from Canada writes: Jeff S from Canada writes: Chysler's design engineers must be literally blind. Who could design cars that looked so ugly. And then change the model every couple of years that just drove depreciation on older models into the dirt. If you buy a product from this company you have noone to blame but yourself. The nerve of this author to blame it on Diamler. Outrageous. Buy a Ford. I'm trading in my Infiniti on a 2009 F150 4x4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The above post qualifies as the dumbest post of the day so far. I was one of those design engineers. I had no say on how the car looked. Most if not all grunt engineers don't. If you've worked with a car studio you know as an engineer that the studio people carry a big stick and as an engineer your job is to take that surface or f...ed section and work with it so that it satisfies the Studio and meets teh functional objectives of performance, manufacturing and process requirements.------------------The author of this article is quite correct on putting the onus on Daimler. I was working at Jeep when 'the merger of equals' took place. My department was primarily British and they had all done time in Germany. First words were 'that's a disaster...the Germans will want to dicate everything'. And they did. They cancelled car and truck lines that would've been a success and promoted garbage such as the Compass, Patriot, Durango and Commander. You can lay that directly on the feet of Dieter Zetsche and Wolfgang Bernhard. Back in 1998, we had a speech given to us in a town hall by then President of Chrysler, Tom Stallkamp. He was very candid. He did state that 'Chrysler' had $28B in the till at that time (wonder where it went) and that he had a clash with Juergen Schrempp over the debate to acquire Nissan. Juergen wanted it, Stallkamp did not. There was tension even then.
  34. lary waldman from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: One, Canadians are stupid to pay the price for cars that they do. Two Unions demanded and got rediculous amounts of money and benifits for their workers, can't blame them, that's their job. Three the people responsible for green lighting projects for Chrysler either did not understand what people wanted, or where deaf, dumb, and blind.In the end lets hope that Italian design genius works.

    Lary Waldman
  35. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau, Canada writes: One last comment about NA mafucturers not making the good small car. My 1976 Honda Civic was smaller than the current Honda Fit, and in fact it was probably almost two and half times smaller than the current Civic. For fun check out the size of a Toyata Rav4 from 5 years ago and compare it to the current model. Honda Accord used to be a small car, its now a full sized sedan.
  36. macdaddy 1959 from How bad is really..., Canada writes: Fiat isn't taking a big risk on Chrysler, the workers and the taxpayers are. From what I've read, the Canadian operations appear to be well run, so lets hope that this accounts for something...
  37. noel fowles from salt spring island, writes: Jeff S from Canada writes: Buy a Ford. I'm trading in my Infiniti on a 2009 F150 4x4.
    Philosopher Cowboy Out West in MB or SK from LaSalle, Canada writes: Price out a new diesel 4x4 and then tell me how wonderful the deals are compared to years past.

    A new Cummins 4x4 club cab, long-box for $32, 400 is a steal.
  38. S D from Canada writes:

    I've owned Chrysler since 1992. Two minivans. Defective transmission, radiators, headgasket, struts, poor quality brakes...The list goes on and on. I come!
  39. Haywood Jabloughme from Canada writes: Thomas Price believes that building Hondas and Toyotas in Canada contributed to the demise of the Big 3? I will grant him the fact that tax incentives were certainly at play but the Japanese automakers had already just about killed the Big 3 long before they built one car in North America. '82 for Honda and '86 for Toyota. Why do you think Lee Iacocca is so feted? Chrysler was just about dead 30 years ago and he brought it back to life. I found it sad that this article gave him only one line and did not expand on the role he played in saving this company the last time it was in this predicament. For the record it was his call that brought the Jeep brand under the control of Chrysler. Clearly one of the posters knows this though because he already suggested bringing Mr. Iacocca out of retirement. I think at 84 he's probably had enough but hey you never know.

    Do I feel great about our tax dollars going to bail-out car companies that have no one to blame but themselves for the position they find themselves in today. Absolutely not.

    Do I understand WHY we are financing this bail-out? Absolutely. There are too many jobs at stake. Its not just the car companies. Its the Magnas and the Linamars and the countless other spin-off effects of a healthy domestic car business that are at stake here. Unfortunately, the largesse of the Roger Smith's of the 80s and 90s North American auto industry has finally come home to roost and we are left holding the bag.
  40. Rob L from Vancouver, Canada writes: Chrysler's problems began long before theri merger with Daimler. Never owned a D3 junk, and not planning to.
  41. A A from Canada writes: Chrysler consistently had quality problems in the 90's and 2000's. If you don't beleive me check out the reports.

    They were too focused on the shareholders and not the consumer. They had some decent designs (ie. Cirrus, Neon and Caravan) but they had to go screw that up by taking cost out and cheapening the product.

    We owned a 96 Caravan and it was a disaster. We will never buy a chrysler product again. It was my hard earned money that got wasted on a peice of junk.

    Marketing 101: Once you lose a customer it is so hard (sometimes next to impossible) to get them back.

    Good luck Fiat. I hope you can instill your culture in Chrysler 'cause their culture was not working.
  42. Jeremy K from Burnaby, Canada writes: First it's a taxpayer funded bailout but then its a chance to take the big stick to the unions.

    This economic crisis is manna from heaven for rich elites.

    Looks like the working classes have lost yet another round of class warfare.
  43. Maximus Bishop from Fergus, Ontario, Canada writes: The only way that the take over of Chrysler by FIAT will be if Americans buy the small Cars that have made FIAT successful in other markets and I dont expect Americans will buy small cars period, they dont now and it appears only Canadians like small Cars!
    Fiat's small cars are frugal and feeble, dont expect to see them in the market before two years or more as they have to be fitted to North American specs, Most Mechanics have no idea how to repair Fiats and parts supply will be a problem.
  44. Pat Gannon from Canada writes: All this money could of and should of been put into retraining the displaced workers and management for the jobs and businesses of tomorrow. Our economy can no longer be sustained through manufacturing jobs when they pay $1 per hour in Mexico and must move towards creative and knowledge based economies. This bailout might amount to $4 to $5 thousand per worker and that would go a long way in restructuring our economy as opposed to propping up what will eventually fail anyway.
    Also, is it not about time that 'our elected' officials start listening to and acting on what the citizens' want.
  45. Lino Man from Toronto, Canada writes: david t from Canada writes: Come on Canada Let's make this month the WORST MONTH for CHRYSLER.
    Let's go for 100 % drop in sales for May.


    Yep that makes sense. Give them a taxpayer loan then Boycott them.
    What a idiot!
  46. Gid 416 from Toronto, Canada writes: everything's constantly changing and Chrysler needs to re-model and modernize themselves. their mgmnt and unions drove the company into the ground, and the gov't should not be bailing them out with taxpayer dollars -- public money should be not be used as a lifeline here! the auto sector is almost dead and can't say we didn't see this one coming. less cars on the road the better.
  47. John Smith from Canada writes: Honda and Toyoda are better cars ...
  48. Oakville Curmudgeon from just to the west of Hazel's Paradise from Canada writes: As sad as it is, Chrysler is history. It will limb along for another few years and the carcass will be absorbed into a successful company. And they will keep on car badged as a Chrysler to keep the name alive and copyrighted.

    And just a note. Anyone who has actually been to Auburn Hills would never describe that blight as being leafy.
  49. Joe V from Canada writes: Boycott Chrysler and dump the loser who has decided to steal our tax dollars (Harper)!
  50. Sabazios the Indomitable from Canada writes: I had a 73 Royal Monaco. It was fast and Toyota's got stuck in the grille.
  51. Anton Berger from Kelowna, Canada writes: 'Other members of the Dream Team stayed on a little longer, but as they left, those who took their places didn't understand how to maintain what had made the company great in the 1990s, says one former executive. 'We lost focus on product, we lost focus on our value proposition, we lost focus on cost and everybody became very distracted by the merger,' says the executive who soon left as well.'

    to me this sums up the problem. Chrysler was brought down by managerial incompetence. managers, as a professional class, are highly trained but tend to know very little about the businesses they're managing. they concentrate on short term gain (especially bonuses for themselves) but do little, if anything, to shore up long term viability.

    this problem isn't limited to Chrysler, or even the D3, it's epidemic throughout North America. most large, and a lot of small, companies are woefully mismanaged. this phenomenon easily explains how we came to be in our current financial crisis. it also explains how our governments have ceased to serve our needs.

    the only way out of this mess is for the populace, the workers, and the shareholders to DEMAND accountability from the self-styled leaders. if we ask nicely they won't do anything.

    Chrysler might survive in the short term, I wish it all the luck in the world. but, like the rest of the economy, long term viability won't come until we get the rest of the mess straightened out. people will hold off buying new cars (unless they have to) until they feel safer financially.
  52. david t from Canada writes: 'Lino Man from Toronto, Canada writes: david t from Canada writes: Come on Canada Let's make this month the WORST MONTH for CHRYSLER.
    Let's go for 100 % drop in sales for May.


    Yep that makes sense. Give them a taxpayer loan then Boycott them.
    What a idiot!'

    No you are the idiot and an autoworker. If we boycott chrysler we let the government know that from now on if they lend money to another loser company Canadians will boycott that company. the government will have no choice but to not throw anymore tax dollars at other loser companies. We have to make a stand Canada and BOYCOTT CHRYSLER .
  53. Ken Woodwords from Ottawa, Canada writes: simple complexity from Toronto, Canada writes: '...Can anybody read any sense into this bailout?'

    Sure I can. No matter which ones you vote in, the strings of politicians are pulled by big money boys.
  54. Juan Taboneya from Canada writes: have the cleverest name I've seen in awhile!!
  55. been there from Toronto, Canada writes: I am not convinced that Chrysler would have survived on its own even if the merger with Mercedes ended up with the loss of focus on product innovation and workmanship.

    The problem remains the massive overcapacity in the auto industry world wide, and is particularly acute in North America.

    Even an innovative nicher under such conditions would need to find shelter under a larger conglomerate with global distribution strength -- having better Intrepids, Neons and Jeeps that serve primarily a North American market simply can't cut it. Even if Chrysler had remained profitable, it would not be in a position to buy someone like a stodgy faltering GM simply because of the size difference. One of the simply has to exit to address the capacity imbalance.
  56. Titus Cheeks from Canada writes: How are the Vipers selling?
  57. True Patriot from Canada writes: 'Joe V from Canada writes: Boycott Chrysler and dump the loser who has decided to steal our tax dollars (Harper)! '

    How can anyone tell if people boycott Chrysler? No one buys their cars anyway. Boycott Harper for selling out taxpayers
  58. Titus Cheeks from Canada writes: I was sitting beside a Crown Victoria the other day. Why is it so hard for car companies to get things to line up? The body side moulding on the doors were a good 1/2' out of alignment where the two doors meet. They must have the guy with the poorest eyesight sticking these things on. Terrible.
  59. S H from Windsor, Canada writes: You people don't have a clue...Daimler is the main reason for Chryslers demise. Daimler should be ashamed! This story is only the 'tip of the iceburg'!!!

    Every country with an auto industry is helping out and to say Ford is great because they received no tax money. Wake up. Ford was in worst shape than Chrysler and GM 3 years ago. They benefitted from going down the toilet in good times. They've received tax money to keep plants open. The one engine plant here in Windsor received 85 million to stay open and build a new engine. A V8 engine!

    The cost to tax payers for bailouts today is little in comparison to what it would have cost us all, if we had let them fail. Not to mention our whole manufacturing base in this country! Hopefully Chrysler,Ford and GM get through these tough times and become successful company's once again!!! I know this city's survival depends on it!
  60. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: Daimler's general mismanagement, gutting of its resources and talent, and an overall neglect led to the downfall of the once innovative and dynamic Chrysler.
    The bigger picture is that Chrysler relative strenghts -- the smallest and most nimble and cohesive of the Detroit-three -- were also its vulnerability in the world of BIG AUTO... Eaton sought security in the arms of Daimler, and the class of cultures and arrogance of the Germans and loss of the Chrysler dream team and it innovations doomed Chrysler.

    While I supported the gov't loans to G.M., I have re-thought the support given to Chrysler; since there is a much higher risk that it will NOT survive the Fiat merger, it likely was unwise by the Obama administration to support the smallest of the Detroit-three... Of course, Canada would also support them, given more than 25% of Chrysler's jobs are in Ontario...

    Sadly, building outdated cars and minivans due to the gutting of the company from 1998 onwards...

  61. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: S H from Windsor, you are living in the past. GM is already gone from Windsor, and Ford is still making cut-backs and the Chrysler minivan plant is on shakey ground...

    Windsor bet on the Detroit-three BIG TIME and won many times (years), but continued to place all their bets with them...

    The result, the unemployment capital of Canada... with little prospect of renewal (skilled labour is moving on and the history of union entitlement here making new major investments unlikely).

    The automotive industry will be just fine - with a reduced Detroit-two and new Chinese and India cars challenging every other car company.

    But Windsor is toast for the next 10-20 years. We will become a semi-ghost town just a few years later than our neighbour Detroit. Sadly, we thought Canada was immune.

  62. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: Sadly, even the stalward Caravan minivan stood still while the competition well surpassed it. Even its discounts and relatively cheaper price no longer make up for this; see the Globe and Mail review on Thursday.

    I could only justify buying a used Chrysler product because they are cheap and the parts are cheap; not for the reliability, performance, or style...

  63. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: The loans in the U.S. and Canada would have been MUCH better used by investing in innovation and technology, such as:

    (a) general science and engineering research
    (b) high speed rail in the Quebec - Windsor corridor and perhaps Calgary-Edmonton.

  64. Daren Alex from Canada writes: Oh yeah, one more thing, keep sending profits to JAPAN, so they can fix their Economy. Strange, how many un-informed and cynical people are here!
  65. daniel saliken from vancouver, Canada writes: The gov intent to save the manufacturing base in Canada is worthwhile, but not if you just throw away $billions spread out among the failures.

    There is at least one, perhaps two, too many car companies in NA. How many 4X4 or work truck choices do we need from our domestic source? There must be 6 SUVs alone from Chrysler and as many more from Ford and GM. Do I need 20 SUV choices outside of the 15 pickup truck choices that are all the same except for sheet metal and what part breaks first? What huge overhead!

    The big 3 are killing each other in competition and producing crap cars because of it. Could Toronto support 3 NHL teams in their market? Let Chrysler go. They always made the ugliest and worst built. RIP
  66. J Henry from Canada writes: I think what some people should realize is that the D3 had to compete with inflated union wages in the past which depleted them of cash that could have been spent 100 better ways to be competitive.

    Still the Jeep, Caravan, Fusion, Impala etc were competitve products inspite of the union.

    Right away these cos are already 1,000's of dollars more competitive per car, free of their legacy costs.

    These cos may not be so bad investments now as they will be leaner, have more cash resources and be more cost competitive.

    Chrylser generates more in tax revenue yearly than the total of the amount of their loan. It makes sense to me that you could provide a lona where you get your money back within the year, right?

    We already lent them the money. Like there are avid Toyota owners, there are loyal Chrysler owners who will continue to buy their products. The govt is backing the warranties so there is no risk to ownership. We should look at this from a balanced or optimistic viewpoint as we are now essentially shareholders.

    A couple of promising sales months and confidence is increased, stock goes up, and we all make money. Why is that so bad to wish for?.

    Boycott people not wishing this on others.
  67. Dr Strangelove from Tokelau writes: Juergen Schrempp for sure was a corporate devil incarnate, an unmitigated disaster for both companies involved in the merger he brought about. However, it is too simple to blame him alone.

    At Daimler Benz, Schrempp was only the last (and worst) in a string of incompetent CEOs that tried to outdo one another in fashioning a 'global' company out of what is essentially a local one with some overseas factory outlets. However, after he was gone, Daimler has managed to pull itself together and remain competitive, mainly because it has lots of loyalty and professionalism at all ranks in the company, and to such a company an incompetent CEO can inflict only so much damage.

    Nowhere can you hear the mantra 'teamwork' conjured up and reiterated as often as in NA. Why? Because it's missing.
    This is the true difference between American or British corporate culture on the one hand, and Japanese and German on the other, and this is the reason why, without inspired leadership, American companies are always staring into the abyss.
  68. garth mckenzie from Canada writes: So now it's the Germans' fault that Chrysler blows?

    I don't think so.

    And why boycott Chrysler. That's what we've been doing for decades and all it got me was less money in my pocket to pay corporate welfare to a failed company, it's retarded executives and it's redundant overpaid line workers. And STILL no car in the driveway.

    Boycott your tax return. That would eliminate government. That is the root of all evil.
  69. Claudia Adams from Toronto, Canada writes: the REAL question you all are facing now is:

    who am I going to vote for now?

    let's look at the choices, shall we...?

    right, not necessary. The 'government' knows just too well that you all can blast the deal, hate the 'government' for handing out our money, spew your (well-deserved) frustration all over this forum, and then, you all will go back to the ballot and vote, yes, what? Right: Tony Clement. What else can you do? Look, the only party that could actually risk handing over our money in the face of this collective outrage and hope to get away with it are the conservatives because the majority of you that is really hating the proceedings of the last few months will eventually have to step into the voting booth and look at the choices and do what you have always done. Or do you now suddenly think that the liberals or NDP or whoever would have done a better job? So, really, why should they really worry. The liberals on the other hand would have known that this move would have been the end of it. So would they have done it? Maybe. But from the start the conservatives knew it was going to be a low-risk move to do what they were told by Washington.
  70. John Perry from Canada writes: Chrysler will not only survive, but will become a leaner, nimbler world-class car company. They have been buried countless times, and this current credit crunch cannot last forever. Pent up demand will finally unleash a buying frenzy, especially with the low prices we see today in most vehicles sold. The car industry has always been one of boom and bust, ups and downs, so this current cycle is par for the course. I myself am a 25 year veteran from the Brampton plant, and would not hesitate to give my job to a younger person at the new 2-tier wages recently negotiated, provided I can be pensioned off. I've had my kick at the can, am established, and can use the time off. Let some young lad or lass who wants to start a family and provide for them have my job. And as consumers, let's at least have an open mind about all this, and help the domestics out by giving them a chance at redemption. You would be genuinely surprised at the number of recalls that don't get reported by the media of the Japanese and Korean imports. They generally purchase parts from the same suppliers as the Big Three, so experience problems as well. I've owned 5 Chryslers in 24 years, of course with various problems throughout all this time. But I personally know neighbours who have bought Hondas and Hyundais who have complained ad nauseum about poor service and expensive parts. We need the Detroit Three to survive and thrive. You'll never know how important these companies are to the health of the North American economy.
  71. Mo Abdelmalek from London, Canada writes: Chrysler's demise is as a result of the short-term management of its cash flows, a mode of thinking used by all the other North American auto giants. I do not believe its planned acquisition by Daimler caused its downfall, although the two companies shared no strategic positioning whatsoever. Chrysler decided to inflate its short-term earnings by increasing production to capacity so as to elevate economies of scale and decrease the cost figures on its income statement - not realizing that those extra cars it produced could find no buyers! The marketing management of Chrysler is also lacking, Chrysler introduced new automotive products based on short-term trends and scrapped them when the fad disappeared, not accounting for the significant disposal costs. The decisions to drop one of its iconic car lines were not very wise. It is unfortunate, an adoption of lean production may have helped.
  72. Hee Hoo Sai from Canada writes: Boycott stupid, buy anything that is not made in Ontario. What is the matter with you people? Are you trying to drag everyone down to the level of idjut? Try acting like if not adult, at least semi paper trained children. Old Chrysler 340,000 km city driving no real problems, old jeep beater, 260 km, on second water pump.
  73. F. T. from Somewhere in the Sonora, Canada writes: Willys, Kaiser, AMC, Chrysler, we've all seen this movie before. The parent will die and Jeep will live on to be bought and sold by yet another unworthy parent.

    The legend continues...
  74. Rudy Krueger from Canada writes: Facts seem to matter to so few people - only a handful of the posters here. Anyone that examines the deal for Chrysler can see it is no 'bail out.' It is a public protection move in every sense. It is also not without precedent in cases where American auto companies have gotten themselves into hot water and walked away from fortunes without government and public participation - like GM with Fiat, Ford with Toyo Kogo/Mazda, BMW with Rolls Royce, Ford with Jaguar and Rover, GM with Toyota in the USA and so on and so on. All that is background noise while the center stage is a much needed clean-up of the world's auto industry. Cars are commodities with brand names. There is horribly too much capacity for anyone to succeed. The way the thing has been structured because of incredibly effective robotic production capability, it was facing three fatal dciseases - One was its so-called 'legacy cost' which is overhang from the old days and not just in people cost but in many kinds of expensive inertia such as dealership deals and bad plants. The second was a structure that forced over-production globally. The third was inherent or structural need to respond to the whimsy of customers - SUV's one day and micro-hybrids the next. REgulatory intervention is the only solution to this (ie weight and mileage restrictions). To minimize the pain governments had to do exactly what has been done and a bit more yet to come. But the Chrysler deal shows 75% of what will occur over the next few years to rationalize. Now comes the international divvying-up of market and the re-allocation of skills and facilities to other uses. If one goes back months and months to the time when these failure began, there were a scant few persons anticipating pretty well all of this but the rant-and-rave buffoons couldn't care less about boring fact. They wanted to blow off about their opinions on car designs and Aunt Martha's bad experience with a Corvair.
  75. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: What the US and Canadian govts are really doing is temporarily delaying the inevitable closing of one or two of the Detroit-three... It is a large (and very inefficient) welfare program.

    Maybe Windsor real estate will be SO cheap that new investments will come... one day... but not until the union culture of entitlement wakes up.

  76. Kim Morton from Canada writes: Never let bean counters run a business, except maybe a bank. To run a car business successfully one must be a car person, to run a forestry company takes a logger or sawmill worker. This is also why governments have so much trouble looking after the economy. No business sense.
  77. Harold K from Windsor, ON, Canada writes: mad hat1 from kingston, Canada writes: 'Chrysler's downfall was not so much about shoddy cars and overpaid workers.'

    It was about REALLY shoddy cars and REALLY overpaid workers.

    >>> What is your objective evidence?
    I believe Chrysler's quality ratings are equal to most car companies; certainly better than many European cars...

    Overpaid? It was what the market/management would bear... And at least the CAW (Finally) showed flexability in taking a $17 cut in benefits... give them credit for that.

    Again it is not so much about the unions; it is about global competition and over-capacity and the recession...
    and Chrysler's gutting by Daimler and its sole reliance on North America...

    Chrysler vehicles are still very good value used, as they are cheap to run and fix, and decent (if not always great) reliability.
  78. Tim Bryson from Canada writes: Lack of vision and focus on what the company had done well seem to be the issue here. Why do people keep focusing on the CAW? Are they responsible for poor decisions made over the last 10 years?
  79. Rob Latimer from Oshawa, Canada writes: cnp cnp...I've been reading your posts for a while now and I've yet to read one that makes any sense what so ever. The CAW doesnt force the D3 to do anything. The CAW is there to represent the workers, not to design the cars. The CAW has tried to make the government understand that the unfair trade policies were going to kill the Canadian auto industry. I think now they see the light! One last thing, this is a bridge loan meaning the government has borrowed the money from the bank and given it to Chrysler and GM. The only way this becomes tax payer money is if the loans do not get repaid. Looking at the deal the government could actually walk away with quite a nice profit...just like they did in '82!
  80. A Sickened Canadian from Canada writes: I'm a white collar worker in the auto parts industry. From the rumbling I hear we're looking at rounds of temporary layoffs and plant closures for the duration of the Chrysler (and probably GM) bankruptcy process(es).

    The collapse of the automotive supply chain is imminent. Some companies will survive but many will not due to the lack of revenue and un-availability of credit. It's all going to come tumbling down. Ontario's unemployment numbers are going to skyrocket in the coming weeks.
  81. cnp cnp from Canada writes: the canadian auto workers sure as haell dont know much about running a car company and that seems pretty obvious.they have certainly played their part in forcing these companies to make some poor decisions.our tax dollars at work.what a joke.corporate welfare
  82. harry carnie from Northern B.C, Canada writes: When imported autos began arriving in North America many were poorly designed crap.

    The importers DID make a consistent effort to improve design, and quality, of product over the years.
    Their dealers made efforts to maintain customer loyalty in coping with problems(and there were LOTS) it also lessened adverse publicity about the problems

    Ford and G.M followed this line of thinking...but only to a degree. It is only the last few years that quality and reliability has showed a NOTICEABLE improvement OVER ALL.
    G.M. and Ford always had a FEW excellent vehicles..but dealers only made a limited attempt at maintaining customer loyalty over the years
    when it came to the models with severe problems.

    Little Bear ..sums up Chrysler VERY WELL!!
    when it comes to customers of Chrysler products.
    (same as my wife and I)
    You purchase an attractive product at a reasonable price............only to find it is unreliable crap.
    The dealers (most) show absolutely NO interest in
    coping with problems after you have bought the vehicle.
    Chrysler will NOT succeed until it concentrates
    on product quality and reliability as well as dealer credibility in coping with problems.
    Some current Chrysler products are incredibly ugly
    'mobster mobiles' with little slitty windows and very limited rear vision.
    The Sebring IS attractive, but having owned one would we take a chance on buying another?...NO

    We also remember the lack of quality in those
    beautiful, sleek Intrepids, and handsome Caravans of the past.
  83. Rob Latimer from Oshawa, Canada writes: Harry, those 'incredibly ugly mobster mobiles', also known as the 300, broke the record for most awards received by any vehicle ever made! That may be your opinion but the public obviously feels different. I own a 300 and I have no visability problems at all. I also own a Charger RT(Hemi) and have had no problems with that either. It is by far the best sports car for the money! 350HP, leather, traction control, power everything, 20 inch rims, MDS (which shuts the engine down to 4 cylinders when you're not in need of all 8)...and above all it is a real head turner! Chrysler has changed their ways when it comes to quality and it will take a while before the public realizes this. The D3 used to sell a cheaper less reliable vehicle but now is on par with the quality of any manufacturer.
  84. harry carnie from Northern B.C, Canada writes: Rob Latimer your 300 sounds like a 'great ride'
    Still.. I do not care for the 'boxy' ...high belt line small windows.
    This also applies to G.M.`s Camaro.
    As well as many other makes that are displaying this 'design'.

    Good to hear that Chrysler HAS improved their quality.(as Ford and G.M.have done)
    Personally.. I hope ALL of our (3D) survive.

    As to the 'ranters' here who wish otherwise...who cares?
  85. J S from Canada writes: I am extremely disappointed that our governments intervened and gave a private equity firm billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to save a company that was destroyed by the executives. By the way, what does a private equity firm do? Oh ya, THEY RAISE CASH FROM INVESTORS. So now, I only have some remaining questions: 1. When is Chrysler paying back the $500 million plus in evaded taxes? 2. Which Chrysler executives are going to jail for the tax evasion scheme? 3. When do taxpayers get our money back from Cerebrus? 4. When do we hear the announcement of the cut in pay, benefits, pension, bonuses and other perks for the executives? I'm sure the executives will cut thier own remuneration the same percent as the union members, at minimum - right!? And no, I'm not going to be surprised when I read in next week's paper that Tom LaSorda is receiving ten or more million as a bonus.
  86. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: So much rhetoric and we should be talking about the REALITIES. At this time the workers are laid off for at least 6 weeks, unexpectedly they claim, which means that they have not saved for the occasion and will quite probably endure financial hardship whilst our Harper Govt. gets caught AGAIN with their pants down, for dishing out the EI at short notice. Then, look at the contract they signed with the Company through their union. The Company will not reduce the base wage BUT they have the right to hire part time and/or contract workers -who, of course, will not be entitled to benefits, saving the Company a pile of money but using the taxpayers again to support them when they are not working; hence another subsidy for the Company. Of course, these part time and contract workers can eventually replace a lot of the permanent 'base wage' workers who are not liable to get their wages cut. Was this a good deal for the workers?
  87. harry carnie from Northern B.C, Canada writes: S.M. from Canada.

    You sum the situation up wonderfully..'in a nutshell'

    A 'cultural thing'? hummmm....... UNRESTRICTED GREED AND STUPIDITY.
    With perhaps a large dollop of 'ego' as to who has 'the biggest'.
    Perhaps this could be called 'North American culture' it certainly prevails in most companies.

    The purpose the company was created for in the first manufacture a quality product, or provide a service to customers or clients is no longer considered.

    Profit to the shareholders of companies bought out...salaries and bonus payments to the C.E.O`s as well as fat commissions for those brokering the deal is what is counted.
    Sooner or later, the bubble bursts, when the
    PURPOSE of the companies very existence is destroyed or severely compromised..
  88. Rob Latimer from Oshawa, Canada writes: JS, to answer you questions...1) The taxes have actually been paid in full to the government, the argument is which govt should have gotten how much. Chrysler pays taxes to both US and Canada, Canada feels they should have received some of the money paid to the US so the argument is actually between the US and Canadian governments. Canada has withheld a tax return of $350 million owed to Chrysler and put a $500 million lien on the Brampton plant until the issue can be solved. 2)Nobody will be going to jail, although I do think there are a few bank execs that should be considered! 3) The money loaned to Chrysler does not actually come from tax payers. It is a loan taken out by the government on behalf of Chrysler. Only if Chrysler goes bankrupt and liquidate would the government have to cover the loan. They would be one of the first in line to receive cash from the liquidation though. Cerberus has given up their equity in the company and no longer has any control. 4) I'm still waiting for the same announcement! The execs from Chrysler and GM said they would work for $1 this year but I have seen no proof of this. I hope this helps to answer your questions.
  89. frank arnold from pickering, Canada writes: If the 'new' Chrysler hopes to survive as a viable,financially successfull company with any hope of repaying the billions borrowed from various levels of government then at least two basics of good corporate behavior must be adheared to.First of all,any corporate philosophy which includes ignoring customer complaints re:faulty product,non responsive dealer management,and a total lack of customer service is bound for the scrap heap.Chrysler has lived by the last three concepts for a long long time.This was a company which was reknowned for its engineering prowess in the 1950's and 1960's.It had the best staff of engineers of any automobile company anywhere.They produced fine products including a great line of trucks.Later on when it was necessary to bring in Lee Iacocca from Ford in order to stave off bankruptcy,they were given a second chance at survival.Loans were obtained from the U.S. and Canadian governments and the father of the 'pony' cars at Ford initiated a program of products which of course included passenger vans.Chrysler made so much money that all government loans were repayed.Unfortunately NOTHING has been learned by this company from the errors of its past.It produced a long list of terrible vehicles like the X cars and combined this with a total absence of customer service.Companies like Toyota care about their customers whether it's surveys conducted by phone,mail or e-mail.They listen to the people who build,sell and purchase their product.Chrysler,this is the way its done.Iacocca proved it with his Japanese management style when he was the MAN at Chrysler.I think that it is truly an impossible task when the UAW and CAW now own so much of this company.
  90. Rob Latimer from Oshawa, Canada writes: Yvonne, the workers here in Canada have been told it will be a 2-4 week layoff due to a parts shortage from the US. The filing for bankruptcy protection by Chrysler in the US was not supposed to stop any shipment of parts to Canada as we have not filed for bankruptcy protection. This week was a schedualed down week anyway so to say we were not prepared would be a little misleading. Also, we have had 6 down weeks already this year so its nothing really new to anyone. As far as the deal goes, its good for some workers but not so good for the ones who will lose their jobs due to the cuts. The elimination of the SPA weeks will result in about 300 more workers at Chrysler losing their jobs. The use of part time workers(TPT's) will actually cut some more full timers but we dont know how many yet. There are a lot of complicated issues in the new contract...too many to be able to fully explain in one post but if you have any other questions I will do my best to answer them. All in all, most of us still have our jobs but only time will tell how it works out.
  91. i. ignatius from Mt. Pleasant, Canada writes: what i have wondered for a while ...

    Cerberus paid about 8 billion and got 80% of Chrysler.

    We're throwing in 3 billion and we're getting some percentage in the 2 or 3 percent range??

    why the disparity? is there something more to the Cerberus deal when they gained control from Daimler?
  92. A Sickened Canadian from Canada writes: @Rob Latimer:

    My future and yours are tied together now it seems, even though our jobs are likely very, very different. I'm pulling for you and your fellow union brethren and desperately hoping that the D3 manage to make it through this and turn themselves around. The careers, futures and dreams of thousands of people depend on it. In many ways I think we're talking not just about the automotive industry but also the well being of the working class in North America.

    I want to see this work out because it will prove that the hard working blue collar workers in North America can build cars as efficiently as anybody else on earth and with the quality to match.

    Most of all, I'd love to see the nasty, petty people hoping for their neighbor's misfortune to be so terribly wrong.

    Good luck my friend.
  93. John Perry from Canada writes: Chrysler will rise up again, mark my words.
  94. John Perry from Canada writes: There must be a lot of Ford/Toyota/Honda lovers on this board today, as most of the information is largely negative. I would have loved to see what the reaction would have been, if instead of Fiat or Chrysler in the lead, it was Ford or one of the transplants?? There is a lot of spite and animosity out there towards Fiat or Chrysler, why else would there be so much negativity? Let me state at the beginning so there is no misunderstanding: I work for Chrysler at the Brampton plant, and have put in well over 25 years with the corporation. I have built a sizeable nest-egg through a combination of savvy investing and good-old fashioned saving. I own my home outright, as well as my two vehicles, don't have any debt whatsoever. I can handle either a Chrysler bankruptcy that drags out for 2 or more months no problem, and if there's a liquidation, well a $26/hour job with a few benefits awaits me when that happens ( guaranteed). I hope one of two things happens, no preference whatsoever. First, I would love to see this marriage of European/North American automakers work and become very profitable. Why? Well, since my 30 and out is coming, it assures my retirement. Also, it would be guaranteed to p*ss off the boo-birds here to no end. Finally it would prove to all you geniuses who doubt its feasability that it can succeed. Conversely, I wouldn't mind seeing this whole effort collapse, and Chrysler liquidated. First, I have a back-up job guaranteed, if I want it. Secondly, the government would have sunk in so many of your tax $$'s, that getting it all back with interest would be next to impossible. Guess who would be on the hook to cover all those future deficits?? Yup, you nay-sayers out there. I would probably have to cough up more money too, but I can afford to. Narcissist on my part, maybe;callous, definitely so;unfeeling, you bet. In this dog-eat-dog world the WTO created, and that you import lovers helped speed along, I have one thing to say: 'HUNGRY, EAT YOUR IMPORT'.
  95. Richard Keefer from Omemee, Canada writes:
    Fund-It-Again-Taxpayer is pulling a big con on McGuinty and the Big Con Harper himself in claiming it is contributing billions in technology to the Chrysler deal.

    If Fiat has technology of any value in North America, then surely it must have secured it with thousands of U.S. patents, right?

    In searching U.S. patents by assignee (who owns them) and for issue dates within the last 20 years, here's the count:

    GM 6,588 U.S. patents
    Ford 3,113
    Chrysler 1,840
    Fiat 238

    Our slacker bureaucrats don't have to hire a high-priced patent firm for this piece of the due diligence process I bet they haven't done. The U.S. Patent Office allows direct boolean searches of full text patents granted since 1976 through their site Fiat has a sufficiently small number of U.S. patents that it would not be a difficult chore to print them all off and read them.

    It could well be that Fiat should be paying the Chrysler estate for access to its IP, rather than the other way around.

    In 1955 Chrysler introduced the '100 Million Dollar Look'. In 2009, Canada's own Speedy Greedsters Harper and McGuinty introduced the Six Billion Dollar Goof.
  96. Rob Latimer from Oshawa, Canada writes: To A Sickened Canadian, well said! Once we get rolling again it is expected to get very busy for Chrysler here in Canada. I cant get into to many details but I can tell you that the windsor and brampton assembly plants will be getting future product beyond our next contract. As of last week we had over 30 days of orders to fill which will continue to rise on a daily basis while we sit and wait for parts from the US. I remain very optimistic about the future of Chrysler and GM and hope that this is the turning point to both becoming successful again. Good luck to you as well! I can promise you that the auto workers that I know take their jobs and the quality they put into them very seriously.
  97. John Perry from Canada writes: I can second what Rob Latimer is saying, because an insider friend I know at the Brampton plant ( who also, btw, happens to be related to my wife), said orders are flying in, and that it's sickening that we have to be home, and not at the plant making these wonderful new products people want. The Challengers on their own are 5500 units behind in orders ! People on this board can wish us ill, but we will rise like the Phoenix, future looks bright and promising, and John Perry can retire with the dignity and pension he deserves.
  98. John Perry from Canada writes: Someone said that all the recent publicity Chrysler and GM have been receiving can't be good, especially with all the negative connotations associated with the various stories. I am reminded of the same thing happening in the 1980-82 period, when Chrysler almost got liquidated during that recession, but came back. I was hired around then, not knowing how long I would last, but 25 years later, I'm still here. Wouldn't it be wonderful and ironic if after all the doom and gloom that has been going on the past few months, Chrysler and GM emerge from all this stronger and wiser, and defy all the odds to live another day, or decade? ( gnashing of teeth here for those who hate us)

    I for one love this, as I'm getting a lot of yard work done, am getting plenty of rest, getting to watch the hockey playoffs( GO HAWKS!!), and getting paid handsomely. Boycott Chrysler and GM all you want, your'e only a very tiny, minute, insignificant sub-sub-minority of public opinion regardless. Chrysler will rise from the ashes of bankruptcy protection, and John Perry will be vindicated.
  99. John Perry from Canada writes: All of you Honda and Toyota lovers, what would you say if last year, the leading recalls for vehicles were led by Toyota, with Honda in 4th place?? See, you don't want to admit that maybe your lovely Asian cars aren't so infallible after all, do you?? The Asians are very canny and sneaky, they get you to come in for your regular maintenance, and lo and behold, you come out with a brand new oil pan, or maybe a different oil filter, or what have you. They say it is an " upgrade", which allows them to by-pass having to recall the vehicles and getting all the bad publicity. Bury your head in the sand, but don't buy all that crap about the Asians caring about you and your car, and making the customer number one. Ask yourself this: if customers expect cars to last forever, or at least 300,000 km, do you think it would be in the best interests of Toyota or Honda to produce such vehicles? You don't think they want their vehicles to have only so much life in them, so that you come back for more? 'Cause if you didn't, where would they sell the excess capacity that inevitably is created?? I personally believe Canadians and Americans who are enthralled with imports, are so for the following reasons: first, since imports are considered chic and other-worldly, having one gives you instant rock-star status. Secondly, you know your neighbours either work for one of the Big Three, or a supplier of the Big Three, so this is your way of screwing them, because you are jealous of their wages and benefits packages. Third, you have bought into the myth that the Asian cars are more reliable. Do your homework, just ain't so. If Canadians and Americans were more nationalistic, and loyal to their region, they would support the Big Three, and tell the Asian imports to go to h*ll. After all, who brought the Japanese and Koreans their freedoms and technical know-how to allow them to do what they do today?Yup, North Americans in WW2 & the Korean War. Again, "HUNGRY?EAT YOUR IMPORT".PEACE

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff


Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top