GM to Cut Pontiac, 21,000 Jobs
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 04-27-2009 - 11:01am |
My heart goes out to all those people without jobs. :(
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story/GM-to-Cut-Pontiac-21-000-Jobs/kYLlxaZ6t0KZbtFj5yAwEw.cspx
General Motors says it will cut 21,000 hourly jobs and the entire Pontiac brand in what is being called a major restructuring effort.
Under the plan, GM will cut hourly employees from about 61,000 to around 40,000 in 2010. That represents about 1/3 of the total hourly workforce, and is between 7,000 and 8,000 more workers than the previously announced cuts.
The company will also be cutting about 1/3 of their plants by 2012. The plan calls for them to have 34 plants when the restructuring is complete. That's down from the current total of 47. No details are yet known on what plants will be cut.
GM will also cut 14 nameplates from their current total of 48, leaving them with 34. Again, no details on which nameplates will be cut, but it presumably includes all of Pontiac's nameplates. The company says it will concentrate on its core brands of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. It is also accelerating plans for Saturn and Hummer, with decisions expected on those brands by the end of 2009.
The company's dealerships will also be slashed by 42%, to about 3,000. GM currently has over 6,000 dealers.


Pages
Have you seen the new Honda?....
http://automobiles.honda.com/2010-insight/?from=http://www.insight.honda.com/#//
Pffft. Look at the message of your own link: Smaller cars are less safe when they collide with larger vehicles. IF you wanted to carry the logic out (and I do mean waaaaay out), those who wanted to be safest would drive Sherman tanks.
Never mind, something bigger, more massive, and "safer" than a Sherman would certainly be the next step. Behemoths would be built and then we'd have the issue of weight-degraded bridges and road surfaces as "dangerous".
I heard all this shtuff before in the 1970's. Same bunch of doomsayers, same load of fatuous and fallible guff.
It's a wonder--other nations have gone to smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles and seem to be doing just fine.
In fact, what with airbags, seat-belts, crumple zones, etc, am theorizing that the small cars of today are safer than the big U.S. cars of the 60's and early 70's.
And if you want to talk about safety overall, let's discuss the propensity of some SUV's and higher profile vehicles for rollover!
Edited 5/1/2009 12:05 pm ET by jabberwocka
Jabberwocka
Yep, my Chevy was made in Canada (not that I have a problem with that!), & my Civic was assembled in California...providing American jobs.
Plus, SUVs are the absolute worst vehicle to give young or inexperienced drivers because of the roll-over danger.
I can see where you're coming from, especially the parking in compact spaces.
GO NOLES!!
A large SUV gives a true sense of safety. :)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269791.html?page=2
According to 2005 statistics collected by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), very large sport utility vehicles, like the Dodge Durnago and the Chevrolet Suburban, have the lowest death rates on the road—about 24 occupants killed for every million registered vehicles no more than three years old. At the other end of the spectrum are mini cars, such as the Mini Cooper or the Toyota Yaris. As a group, they average 144 deaths per million registered vehicles. Midsize SUVs, including the Honda Pilot or Nissan Pathfinder, average 57 deaths, while midsize cars, like the Ford Fusion and Honda Accord, run as high as 70 deaths per million vehicles. Average things out and you are, on the whole, safer in an SUV than you are in a passenger car—their death rate ratio is 47 per million compared to 86. (2005 is the most recent year available. Remember that statistics fluctuate over time, and these could change.)
"too small for most families"
Car has 4 seats.
Average household size..... 2.59
Average family size............3.14
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts
Pages