Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand
 

This reminds me of the woman that showed up to Bankruptcy court wearing her fur coat and diamonds...

"There are 24 daily nonstop flights from Detroit to the Washington area. Richard Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Robert Nardelli probably should have taken one of them.

Instead, the chief executives of the Big Three automakers opted to fly their company jets to the capital for their hearings this week before the Senate and House -- an ill-timed display of corporate excess for a trio of executives begging for an additional $25 billion from the public trough this week.

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands," Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.) advised the pampered executives at a hearing yesterday. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high-hat and tuxedo. . . . I mean, couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here?" "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

It would be nice if they would declare bankruptcy, rework the executive salaries and renegotiate/terminate the union contracts (it's incredible how much money the union workers make) that are killing the companies.

The same Union seems to have two different pay scales for the same jobs. There is, per several news stories, a $10-$20/hr wage difference between the Big Three and the "Imports".
Or put another way, it costs the Big Three $2-$3000 more per car to build.

And BTB:
"Plane facts: GM cutting back fleet

Automaker downsizing to 3 jets; Chrysler owns none while Mulally, family use Ford aircraft.

Robert Snell and Alisa Priddle / The Detroit News

General Motors Corp. has been thinning its corporate jet fleet. Ford Motor Co. continues to explore ways to curtail travel expenses. And Chrysler LLC doesn't even own planes anymore.
The CEOs of Detroit's Big Three didn't mention those facts this week when lawmakers chastised them for arriving in Washington on pricey corporate jets to appeal to lawmakers for $25 billion in emergency loans.
"From a PR standpoint, it was a nightmare," said Michael Layne, a partner in Marx Layne, a public relations firm in Farmington Hills....."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...59/1148/AUTO01

I am so against this bailout...I am in favor of bankruptcy and restructuring. I watched a few minutes of the hearings and what I caught was disheartening. I don't know who was who but the auto execs were each asked if they would agree to work for only $1 for the next year. The first exec. said yes without hesitation. The second exec. said he would consider a small pay cut but would not work for $1. The third exec. stated that he was quite comfortable with his $9.3 million dollar salary and no, he would neither work for $1 nor take a pay cut. I'm sure he wouldn't loose any sleep over laying off his employees....as long as he stays comfortable then all is right in his world. I wish I knew what his name was!!

While the executive salaries are ridiculous, the union wages are not at fault, it is simply the mismanagement of inventory/advertising/executive choices about product lines that are to blame.

Really?

-->

Doesn't matter. The UAW can set whatever standards they want for wages. However, when you look at it, those wages are chump change when looking at the budgets, and the mismanagement of the product lines, over producing inventory, and what they pay for advertising that doesn't work.

Just because you personally don't like unions, doesn't mean they are to blame for anything. Your bias is showing.

Mitch Albom expressed my feelings on this much better than I ever could...

http://www.freep.com/article/2008112...1230371/?imw=Y

I have gone as far as asking other Union members about this; including members of the AFL-CIO.
They wonder about the difference as well.
And some went as far as talking about the relationships between the car companies and the Northern and Southern Lawmakers.
All in all, all parties have to work on this matter and so far I have seen very little, if any, interest from the auto unions in doing so.
If I am wrong, please be kind enough to show us differently.

And advertising DID work. All too well. We "all" bought into the idea that we "needed" trucks/SUV's.
The Big Three, however, "forgot" that they were auto companies. The "imports" however did not.
When they started to manufacture and market truck lines in the US, they did not stop marketing their cars.

AGDEE-Good posting above^^^

Ailing GM looks to scale back generous health benefits
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...are-usat_x.htm

Another rather interesting read:
Oligopoly and the fall of the American automobile industry
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...ll_of_the.html

Auto Bailout: Seeking Signs of Sacrifice

House members push for workers to give up some pay and benefits, and ask why executives still don't seem to get the need for change
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...119_541539.htm
Includes the following:
"Besides a limit on CEO compensation, there has been a spotlight on how much the United Auto Workers and its retirees collect. Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits, vs. around $40 for workers at rival Toyota's (TM) U.S. plants. New hires for the Detroit Three make wages about equal to those new workers for the Asian companies, however. And starting in 2010, the UAW will be in charge of handling its own health-care fund, albeit after billions of dollars in contributions from the automakers."

Myths about the Big Three automakers
The Wall Street Journal and U.S. News try some mythbusting about the Detroit automakers pressuring Congress for a bailout.
The automakers have returned home in failure, by the way, after pleading for help from lawmakers. Democrats said they wanted to see more evidence the companies had a turnaround plan in place, and asked to see a proposal next month. The inability to secure aid will increase the pressure on the companies' boards, the Journal says.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...utomakers.aspx

I'm afraid I'm much too emotional about this topic to truly debate it in any form. So for now, other than posting Mitch Albom's thoughts, I will just say... if they do not get loans from the government and file bankruptcy, I hope everybody is braced for the fallout from it.

I hope you realize how ironic this statement is...if so, I give you credit, it's pretty humorous.

As to the thread: Beyond being a terrible public relations decision, I don't have a problem with them flying their jets to the hearings. It just gives the members of Congress something more to rail against.

The bankruptcy option intrigues me, but I haven't studied the issue enough to really make an intelligent statement one way or another.

http://www.freep.com/article/2008112...1230371/?imw=Y

The sense of entitlement in that article is pretty off-putting. The claim seems to boil down to because Congress has wasted other money it makes sense to hand it over here as well.

And some of the things he mentions, I guess as analogies, don't really work. Approving a merger between Delta and Northwest, Alabama tax breaks?

What are we really talking about with the Detroit Three? Keeping them in business and guaranteeing employment for their workers until such time as the national economy is in better shape overall and can absorb the general job loss better?

Does anyone really believe those companies are going to turn it around and be self-sufficient and profitable? On what would that hope be based? Even the recent fuel price/SUV problem mirrors what happened in the 1970s.

The companies really do need to show how they plan to recover, if they can, to justify giving the money to them.

I don't mind the unions. I would just prefer that they work with the companies (not just in this instance) while things are as bad as they are. It would be better for the employees to take a pay cut than to have the company go under completely and EVERYone get laid off.

I take it you've never met a Union line worker. You've never seen the blood sweat and tears they put into their job. The hours they spend away from their family to put food on the table, going to bed before their own children go to bed because they have to be up at 2 or 3am to make it in for the early shift. They deserve that money. Auto workers are the hardest workers I know. And most aren't even Union. Most are temps who are trying to get into the Union so that they don't lose their job and can get benefits that are hard to come by these days.

Dee we've already felt that fallout. Non Michiganders won't know until shit hits the fan. With every factory or shift closing, more small businesses keep closing. More foreclosures. More job losses. More homeless people out on the street. Everyone's easy answer is to move out of Michigan. Unfortunately for some, it's not that easy. Moving takes money, and some people are lucky if they can even pay their rent or taxes.


You are highly mistaken. While they are headquartered in Detroit (actually Dearborn and wherever), they are NOT the Detroit Three. They are the Big 3 who employs people all over our country, not just in Detroit. These companies going bankrupt isn't going to affect only Detroit, but the cities in which they have factories as well.

I realize they don't actually take home the purported $70/hour. But, they cost more to the employer which is the problem. They could continue to make the same pay without being so expensive to the employer, at least for now while things are so grim. I'd like for them all to keep their jobs, but it won't happen if the businesses go under.

You didn't really address the issue though. Do you think they can be profitable again? What do you think it will take? Shouldn't the companies be able to show a plan for what they will do with the money?

I don't doubt the effects will be felt all over, but are the Big Three just a jobs program for the workers and the general economy? If so, wouldn't it be better to develop a plan to give money directly to the workers for retraining at companies with a track record of profitability?

I don't want to see them go under and I'm not indifferent to Michigan's immediate problem, but what's the long term plan?

Apparently, the author of the article doesn't think the companies should have to offer one.

No one is disputing that they work really hard, but a lot of people work just as hard at jobs (construction, etc.) without getting anything close to those salaries. I understand you live in the area, but there are people all over the country working extremely hard during 90 and 100 hour weeks in manual labor jobs; the auto workers aren't unique in that regard. It's a terrible situation, especially when part of the problem has been poor business decisions at the top.

I think bankruptcy is going to be the best option, but it's a terribly difficult situation with no easy answer.

Unions don't seem to be as flexible as they should be, considering so many unions are made up of semi-skilled laborers who could be replaced at a minute's notice. There are plenty of other industries that thrive in settings where there's both union and non-union labor, like construction.

How is the Canadian auto industry doing? Back in the 80s, the Canadian branch of the UAW split from the parent union, created the Canadian Auto Workers, and negotiated their own deal with the automakers. There's a great documentary about that whole time.

I'm probably too cynical, but I can't believe that the union leaders are really being so inflexible for the sake of the workers. There's got to be more to it or they would have already done what was necessary to make sure everyone's job was as secure as possible.

No matter what happens I just hope GM does everything they can to keep the Chevy Volt project on track.

No, I totally realize that my socialist tendencies make me incredibly biased towards unions.

However, I think that for the reasons I outlined, it is a bit silly to blame the unions.

And since the original comment was aimed at me, I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-corruption.

The auto companies were holding their own until the following things happened all at once:
1) Gas prices skyrocketed to over $4.00 causing people to stop buying the SUVs. The auto companies make the cars that people want to buy. People WANTED SUVs. They bought SUVs and big trucks like nobody's business. They didn't do that because other things weren't available. I have also chosen to drive small/compact sedans but most people did not want cars, they wanted SUVs. Men did not want little pick ups, they wanted F350s. GM has spent more money on research and development on alternative fuel cars than NASA spends a year. They have gone to the Bush administration repeatedly to encourage the infrastructure required to move to these alternative fuels. The Bush administration has been very invested in keeping oil as our main fuel source for obvious reasons. GM has hydrogen cell engines ready to go. They are planning on releasing the Volt in 2010. GM released the E85 flex fuel engine and guess what? There are 100 E85 gas stations in Michigan. People with flex fuel cars are lucky to be able to find somewhere to fill it up. When the auto makers started releasing hybrids, the reaction of the people was "I'm not driving something that can't accelerate fast and that's a small car". So Ford came out with the Escape hybrid and Saturn made the Vue hybrid and they couldn't keep them in stock. Yet the Malibu hybrids sit on lots. You cannot blame the auto industry for making what their customers wanted to buy. You can blame numerous government administrations for still not having a solid energy policy to make us independent from foreign oil. Not one of them has made a move in that direction.
2) The credit market froze. People who want to buy cars are having a hard time doing so because they can't get credit. I may be facing this myself this week because my car is in the shop and it may not be worth paying for the repairs given the value of the car. If I have to buy a car and cannot get credit, I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. I'm renting from Enterprise right now at the tune of $40-60 a day (depending on the day of the week), but I surely can't keep that up forever. Because of the banking crisis, people can't buy cars. The auto companies foreign market is still doing fine. Sales have dropped to nothing in the US in the past few months.
3) The stock market crashed. No business can survive their stock going from $24 a share in January to $3 in November.
4) They cannot borrow money because of the credit crisis. The money they can borrow is at double digits %. Yet, the Federal Reserve rates have dropped to almost nothing for banks to borrow money from each other.

I agree that the unions need to make more concessions. The $70/hr tossed around is full cost, including what they pay for health care benefits, retirement, dental, Social Security, etc. My employer gives us a statement once a year of our "actual cost" to them which is more than double our salaries when you add in all the other stuff. In truth, they make about $20 an hour straight time although they make much more when they work overtime, sometimes as much as triple time (Sundays). They also sometimes have to work 12 hour shifts 7 days a week which is pretty brutal. I've also seen them injured for life at age 40 so some of it is hazard pay. I was shocked at times when their profit sharing checks were more than my annual income. But then they go through times where they end up laid off for a couple weeks several times a year too. At the same time, GM going bankrupt is going to affect hundreds of thousands retirees who have already lost their health care beginning January 1st and now may also lose their pensions. Their GM stock option plans that they invested in their whole lives have dwindled down to nothing. In 1988, GM stock was over $65 a share. Now it's $3. Those retirees spend money in this economy too. The health care systems are going to be completely overwhelmed by the number of people who no longer have insurance. The ramifications are going to be huge and widely felt and it won't just be in Michigan. Any idea how many GM retirees are spending their money in Florida? North Carolina? Arizona? This isn't a Michigan problem. This is any state that makes polymers and coatings, plastics, tires/rubber, steel, fiberglass, paint, leather, fabric and parts.

This was a very sudden short term crisis that our government officials didn't appear to foresee. GM has a lot of investment into the future with alternative fuels. Their OnStar product is one of the best ideas that anybody has come up with regards to cars in decades. Their handicap accessibility innovations like the moving car seat was the first of it's kind. Do you know that GM developed the first infant car seat? It was called the Love Seat and it came out in the early 70s.

I don't disagree that they should have a plan. They should have driven to Washington in a Volt or hydrogen cell battery car. But, do you punish 5 million people with job losses and send the country into a depression because 3 CEOs took private jets to Washington? Seriously?

And, to be fair, I didn't read your comment as saying "it's the fault of the unions." I read it as, "A bunch of people are to blame for this, including the union heads."

Me? No. My reaction doesn't have anything to do with how they got to Washington. I just don't see them ever really being healthy and competitive, and I question what the money will really do. From the long term survival of the companies perspective, I think their best hope may be bankruptcy because it will allow them shed a lot of their obligations and perhaps emerge strong enough to compete in the marketplace.

But if the main reasons we're concerned are the quality of life of their workers and retirees, the businesses dependent on them, and their impact on the general economy, I'm not sure that there's anything that can really be done to allow the companies to basically continue as they are but be profitable.

I find it kind of odd that you seem to think that the government could have or should have foreseen the issues here but that the corporations themselves were somehow victims of circumstances unrelated primarily to their own behavior or corporate culture.

How do you reconcile the ability of other car companies to stay in business when they've faced the same external conditions?

ETA: When you buy the new car do you think it will be from one of the Big Three? Part of my skepticism about the long term viability of the companies has to do with the fact that they haven't put a vehicle on the market in my car buying life time that I really had any interest in. Ultimately, they have to be able to put out desirable products at prices that people are willing to pay and that allow them to make a profit. Other companies seem to be able to do this better. EATA: Actually, I have to take this back at least in part. I do like Mazdas and their relationship with Ford means I shouldn't say anything this sweeping.

How much money do we give them today to ensure that they are healthy in 10-20 years and that we won't be right back here?

EATA: I feel like I need to add that I'd be really happy to see these companies be successful. It's going to be terrible if they go under, but I'm not completely sure it's avoidable. It's just a question of when and how or it's a question of whether the profitable forms that they will emerge in will meet the needs that we're really discussion when we talk about pension failures, health care costs, wide spread economic impact, etc.

No.. my rhetorical questions at the end were not directed at you personally.

General Motors is the 9th biggest company in the world. Ford is 13th. In the world. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...008/full_list/ In 2007, GM ranked 5th and was profitable. They are having cash flow problems due to the banking industry mess and they want a loan from the government, with interest.

Other car companies do not face all of the same external problems. Foreign auto companies like Toyota pay much less for their health care insurance. Other countries charge huge tariffs on cars that are imported from the U.S. The U.S. does not charge these tariffs on foreign cars coming in. They also pay their employees much less. Toyota has posted losses this year and GM has increased sales overseas but their sales are down significantly in the US. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/upto...-sales-gm.html This will be the first year that GM hasn't led all other auto companies in sales and Toyota won't be beating it out by that much. I'm not sure where you get your impression that GM has always been failing.

My points about the retirees and employees had to do with the impact on the economy and the point that this is not a Detroit problem but a problem for the whole country. My point about the government not anticipating the banking crisis was in response to your comments about the auto companies not anticipating this combination of factors. It seems to me like they all should have foreseen that something was coming, but we tend to ignore things until they become a crisis (health care and social security are both good examples). We're a very reactive society rather than a proactive society.

I would never buy a car from anywhere but GM unless they no longer exist. So yes, my car will be from one of the Big 3. I will buy American cars as long as they exist. It is hard for me to understand why anybody wouldn't support companies from their own country above foreign countries, but given my upbringing, I'm probably brainwashed. I'm fiercely loyal to GM and honestly, other than the Alfa Romeo or VW Bug, I've never seen a foreign car that I liked. I plan to buy either a Pontiac Vibe or a Saturn Vue. I'm leaning toward the Saturn because the "talk around town" is that Pontiac as a brand is going to disappear and I don't want to be stuck with a car that I can't get serviced under warranty from my dealer. The Vue is around $20K and the Vibe is around $18K. My current car sells new for $13K and gets 38 mpg highway. Affordable? Far more affordable than any foreign car I've seen. The Vue is very similar to the Honda CR-V, which sells for a couple thousand more. The Vibe is the same car as the Toyota Matrix and sells for about the same. The Vibe is actually one GM/Toyota joint venture vehicles. I would prefer to wait a year to buy a car because I originally planned to buy one in a year and give my current car to my daughter. I've just hit a spot where it might cost more to repair than it is worth so I may not have a choice. I was also hoping to wait until my mom's condo sold (it's been on the market for a year) so I could pay cash.

And that's where the emotion comes in. I'm scared to death about the economy. I feel helpless and hopeless. We have a condo that can't sell and a fund that's covering the carrying costs of it for now, but there will come a time when that fund is gone and we'll have to pay those costs. I don't think I can afford both that and a car payment. There are 6 houses on my street of 20 houses that are in foreclosure already. More will come if the auto companies go under. My job seems fairly secure, but do I want to live in a neighborhood of abandoned houses? What's that going to be like? Crime is shooting way up already as people get desperate. At the same time, my dad, a GM retiree is freaking out about losing his health insurance in January so he's having every surgery that he's been putting off. His entire GM stock option plan, which he invested thousands and thousands of dollars into has melted away into nothing. His wife is a real estate agent in Florida, so she's not making any money. If GM goes bankrupt, she loses her health insurance. Every Chrysler employee at their headquarters has been offered a buyout package. Every single one. Some have been encouraged strongly to take it as their layoff severance package won't be as good as what's being offered now. They are saying that Delphi won't be able to come out of bankruptcy and if they go under, then GM can't make cars anyway because they are one of their biggest parts suppliers. Visteon, one of Ford's big suppliers is laying off weekly. One friend of mine has been told that she will have a job, but that her entire department is being let go in two weeks. She's not allowed to say anything to them.

It's incredibly scary. I don't wish this spreading to the rest of the country. It's bad enough with it just being here for now.

I didn't address the issue because I chose not to. The companies should be able to show a plan. And yes I think they will be profitable again one day. And I don't understand your job program question. What jobs are you going to retrain these employees for? I'm not quite sure a lot of you understand what's going on in Michigan. THERE ARE NO JOBS. Perhaps they could use that money to relocate, but who wants to leave their family and everything they know?

I definitely agree with you about other jobs where employees work just as hard. Construction workers do make great money if they are union. My dad owned a construction company for many years so I've seen the wages that they made. But sadly those jobs around here are diminishing. Either that or these companies just keep building with no one to move into the places, whether it's commercial or residential which doesn't make any sense to me.

I think it was disgusting when the one CEO said he'd work for a $1 for the rest of the year, the one guy said (if I'm remembering somewhat correctly) that he'd take a pay cut, and the other guy says "No I'm comfortable with my 9.5 million" (not word for word). Ridiculous. I think the white collar workers need to take major pay cuts to save the blue collar workers jobs. Two years ago all 3 were doing major layoffs and my friend's sister, a white collar at Ford or GM, got a 20% raise.

I had in mind anywhere in the country. If there are no other jobs where you are, and your present job and benefits make it hard from your company to be profitable, and your company makes decisions like the one you mentioned to lay off the people who actually produce the cars and give raises to white collar workers, I think you've got to start looking at a plan B.

The best plan B may not be a federal bailout of the companies as they exist currently.

ETA: And if we think that it is the government's job to guarantee manufacturing jobs remain in the US, which is a complicated issue, and Detroit is the best place to start, then it seems like the money has to come with some serious strings attached.

AGDee,

Sorry for being so critical of something so close to you. I hope they do pull it out. And the amount of money they are asking for is relatively small compared to the banking bailout, for whatever that's worth to congress.

Yeah, i think that one lady said it perfectly (about how they should have thought more about how it would look, them all taking their own planes) but then every other person there said it over and over, and much less elegantly. This is all face time to help them get re-elected. I'm so much less opposed to bailing out the auto-industry, provided there is a plan for viable change, than I was to the banking one. The banks did that to themselves, and the credit crunch that has resulted is one of the key factors for the automotive situation.

:eek:

I agree that it was freaking stupid for him to say what he did about his pay and to cut blue collar jobs while giving raises to white collar workers is beyond incredible. :(

Dee you're not alone in your fear. My worry is a little different from yours, however. I know there's a lake between us, but what goes on in my head is:

"Auto industry fails ----> layoffs ----> saturated job market ----> if I can't get lucky and find a job in my field, what are the chances of finding a job in a semi-skilled market to hold me over?"

Because this is how I think employers will be thinking:

"This girl is overqualified, and while we still could hire her, there's this guy over here and he got laid off from GM, he's driving four hours a day to get here, and he's got a family to feed. We're gonna hire the guy."

Not to mention all the other scary things about a possible bankruptcy that you mentioned.

Believe me, even people in Chicago are shaking in their boots about this, and we haven't even begun to feel the effects like you guys have.

This is a perfect illustration of why GM is going under. The Chevy Volt, which I think is ugly and bulky and looks like a car only a man would drive, is scheduled to come out in 2011 and sell for more than $40,000. Meanwhile, Honda is gradually moving to an all-hybrid fleet, with its second generation of the Insight coming out in 2009 and retailing for LESS than the Civic Hybrid...in other words, it'll be one of Honda's cheapest cars (less than $20,000), and if it's like the previous Insight, it'll get more than 60 mpg. And it looks awesome!

GM lacks vision and is out of touch with what Americans want to buy. That is their problem, not the unions. The cheapest workers in the world won't help them if no one wants to buy their cars. And they just don't get it! They need a complete redesign of their line.

If you're the captain of the Titanic and you see the iceberg ahead, do you keep sailing straight for it, or do you try to do something different?!

I love the Volt and would drive one in a heartbeat. If I never had to buy gas again, I'd be willing to pay in the mid 30's (the anticipated cost that I've read for it) to never buy gas again.

Well, different strokes for different folks I guess. But the battery is only supposed to last for 40 miles on a charge, so you would have to buy gas...that is, if you ever drive more than 40 miles when you're out and about, which I do practically daily. Right now it wouldn't work for me because I live in an apartment with no power outlet nearby to charge it. And it is supposed to retail for 40k, but they're trying to get it elligible for a tax credit that would bring it down to around 35k. But still, people could buy a cheaper BMW for that.

My point was that the Chevy Volt is ONE car - that won't be out for another 2-3 years - that GM is hanging its hat on. Why is it the only one, and why didn't they have the vision to come up with it years ago? Toyota and Honda have been working on their hybrids for about 15-20 years.

GM has numerous hybrids on the market already and has for several years. It's not as though GM is hanging it's hat on the Volt. The Chevy Malibu hybrid was selling so fast they couldn't keep up with demand until the credit freeze hit. The Saturn Vue Hybrid is a hot seller also. They are hard to get. GM is also testing hydrogen fuel cell cars but there is nowhere for people to get the hydrogen fuel cells recharged, so that's an issue.

My commute to work is 44 miles so I'd have to use gas for maybe 10 miles a day with errands if I planned them right. That sure beats using gas for 54 miles a day. You'd be talking like a gallon or two a week! That would be so cool. The Honda electric car can currently only go 10 miles without a charge so the 40 miles is a big improvement.

Honestly, I didn't even know Honda had an electric car out.

It's not out, it's in development, like GMs.

And, it's possible it's the Hyundai... I get those "H" car companies confused.

ETA: Oops, it's a Toyota, the Mini-E as they're calling it now. A two seater.

Electric, or hydrogen fuel cell? I don't see anything about an all-electric car from Honda...they've decided to go more in the way of fuel cell rather than electric, I think.

ETA: I also had no idea that Honda has a Natural Gas Civic out! http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/

So let's work through this logically:

This is a simple supply failure - their inability to be flexible with their own supply line is actually a business decision, and a poor one at that. Japanese manufacturers have had to deal with this same issue, and had had no trouble re-tooling factory lines or accounting for sudden shifts in demand.

Additionally, gas prices have been on the rise for a long time, and are now below $1.50/gal - so what now? Is 6 months really that big of a deal? If so, again, that appears to be an endemic failure on their part.

Seeing as the auto manufacturers themselves made the decisions that led to the current financing system (and its inbred nature with dealerships etc.) it's hard to be sympathetic, especially when this has affected dozens of other markets as well.

This is an effect, not a cause - profitable companies still retained value. Companies built on archaic supply chain and manufacturing, with an upside-down pyramid structure, were appropriately priced by the market.

Again, effect, not a cause - this is akin to saying "I hit the ball directly at the center fielder, and he didn't drop it!"

I completely understand that this represents a damaging blow for Detroit and much of MI, and that the "everyday worker" is the one who will ultimately pay for the poor decisions of management - but it seems a bit far-fetched to pretend that this is simply a byproduct of circumstance. In reality, the auto manufacturers screwed up. It's really that simple - sure, Americans were buying SUVs, but Americans were also buying Priuses at record levels, too. The "Big 3" used internal strategy and marketing that was fundamentally flawed, allowing the confluence of circumstances to bring them down.

Now, should this earn a bailout? In the grand scheme of things, $25 billion isn't a ridiculous sum (irony alert) . . . but I, for one, would be loathe to have tax dollars go to allowing the same terrible management to run a private business using public money. It's similar to the airlines - two of the worst-managed industries since the Industrial Revolution, who are lucky to even exist today - and perhaps bankruptcy or nationalization would actually help. I simply would hate to abide the status quo using public money.

The UAW is complicit in this, by the way - while you can't fault a union for doing the best it can for its members, its rigidity really shows what an anachronism most unions have become in the modern economy. The $70/hr figure is ludicrous, considering the general skill level of the workers involved.