GM to temporarily close Arlington plant

[Butta]

11:23 AM CDT Friday
GM to temporarily close Arlington plant
Jaime S. Jordan
Web Editor

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) will temporarily close its Arlington assembly plant, and two other sport utility vehicle factories for a few weeks in 2005 to catch up with unsold inventory, a GM spokesman said Friday.


The Arlington plant, which employs about 3,000 people and produced about 238,000 vehicles last year, will shut down the weeks of Jan. 3, 2005, Jan. 10, 2005 and March 14, 2005, GM spokesman Dan Flores told the Dallas Business Journal.

While employees are off they will receive a significant portion of their wages, as well state unemployment benefits, Flores said. They also will retain their medical, vision and dental benefits.

A similar GM plant in Wisconsin will close for a few weeks, as well as a full-size SUV plant in Mexico, Flores said.

"We certainly don't like to take down time," Flores said. "We'd rather be building the products. Typically month over month we've been very strong on full size SUVs. There's a lot of other competition in the segment .. . customers have more choices."

Flores said GM would use the down time to install equipment and machinery for future production.

Full Article Here

[FoMoCo Fan]

This is what happens when you have a decent product that's simply grown too old to keep up with the competition. Why is GM so slow on updating its full size trucks and SUV's? And why haven't they put the "new" front end from the Silverado on the Tahoe /Suburban?

[MelvinJ]

No, I tend to think that this is what happens when you unnaturally stimulate demand with incentives and overbuild for years. Eventually, everyone that ever thought of owning one has one.

I mean, look at the sales figures for the past few years. Combining Suburban and Tahoe, and both Yukons, because they are very similar and cross-shopped, you are looking at vehicles with stickers averaging over $45,000 selling close to a half million vehicles a year! Is there any other company in the world selling that many vehicles a year in any category in that price range? Combining the Expedition and Excursion sales together puts them on pace for less than 200,000 this year.

The truth is that Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon sales combined are up a little for the calandar year. Ford's Expedition/Excursion sales are down about 15%. Toyota didn't post any sales figures for the Sequoia on their website, but they didn't mention it being up, so I suspect they are down as well.

Sales have been artifically inflated by all the incentives the past few years, and I don't care if you do a total redesign every year and it's the top rated vehicle in every single measure, to think that there's going to continue to be a market for half a million 8-passenger, 5500 lb, station wagons costing $40K+ is absurd. The Suburban and it's variants were vehicles that a lot of people aspired to for a long time, and since 2001, people that couldn't afford one before were able to. The market is pretty saturated now, gas prices are a bit higher, and there are more competitors now. Gosh, what a shocker if they are predicting the market for these trucks softening in the coming months. With Expedition/Excursion sales down much further, is Ford going full speed ahead with production in the coming months?

BTW, I'm glad a hell that they didn't stick the Avalanche front end on the Suburban and Tahoe. It wasn't an improvement to the pickups, and it wouldn't have been to the SUVs either.

[Hudson]

Melvin:

Good analysis. GMT800 sales have been driven by incentives for quite some time. You've got to "pay the piper" at some point.

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by Buick61

That sucks. They still have to pay everyone too....argh. But it seems like they are already tooling up for the GMT900s, so that's great news.

Arlington is suppose to start producing GMT900s some time in March, 2006, so 2005 should be the last full year of production for the 800-based SUVs.

I'm far from a union fan, but I suppose with a cyclical thing like the automotive industry, paying workers when they are laid off keeps you from having to reassemble a plant's workforce from scratch when you tool up for the next model since no one has to run off and find another job. I believe (and maybe Cheeschick can verify this) that the full-sized SUV plants have run heavy overtime for several years now, and quite possibly will again once the 900s come online.

[Ming]

You can't sit inside a new Malibu or Equinox and then sit in a Suburban and not feel like you've taken a trip back to 1996. The interiors looked old when they were new, and in 2005 they will look even older.

Sure, the competition isn't always quick to update this or that model, but this vehicle is GM's Pride - its Bread & Butter.

Am I wrong to expect GM to keep this vehicle as fresh as Toyota does the Camry?

The replacements can't come soon enough.

[jro4566]

I saw this on the news last night...at least the workers have some time off though!

[member12]

how much money would gm lose if they went more toward profits and less toward market share?

look at the Land Cruiser.

redesiged before the GM 800 trucks were, but it has: a nicer interior, better quality, and it sells without incentives.

I am saying that if GM put in the extra effort in the first place, they would save money b/c they won't have to redesign them every seven years.

GM pickups, not to offend, but the new ones look cheap, they did back in 99, and, with the new Titan, Ram, and F150, they look even worse.

Now imagine the 800 with a little better looking front end, and a nicer interior. Those competitors don't look so good anymore.
GM should have spend the money back in 99, so they wouldn't have to spend it now...

[FantaC5]

Originally Posted by Ming

You can't sit inside a new Malibu or Equinox and then sit in a Suburban and not feel like you've taken a trip back to 1996. The interiors looked old when they were new, and in 2005 they will look even older.

Sure, the competition isn't always quick to update this or that model, but this vehicle is GM's Pride - its Bread & Butter.

Am I wrong to expect GM to keep this vehicle as fresh as Toyota does the Camry?

The replacements can't come soon enough.

You know when I got my Tahoe in 2001 the dash reminded me of my Mothers old 1972 LeSabre Dash. Its almost the same style and layout. Whats up with that GM? Just look at the C6s dash, its almost the same layout as the C5 whats up with that also?

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by member12

how much money would gm lose if they went more toward profits and less toward market share?

look at the Land Cruiser.

redesiged before the GM 800 trucks were, but it has: a nicer interior, better quality, and it sells without incentives.

I am saying that if GM put in the extra effort in the first place, they would save money b/c they won't have to redesign them every seven years.

GM pickups, not to offend, but the new ones look cheap, they did back in 99, and, with the new Titan, Ram, and F150, they look even worse.

Now imagine the 800 with a little better looking front end, and a nicer interior. Those competitors don't look so good anymore.
GM should have spend the money back in 99, so they wouldn't have to spend it now...

I'm sure you are aware of this, but I think it bears pointing out - the Land Cruiser is a $55000-$60000 dedicated luxury SUV that is smaller and less powerful than a full-size SUV from GM. Given that, it really better have a nice interior. And it may sell without incentives, but they only sell a handful of them. It's a far cry from the half-million GMT800 SUVs that are sold every year.

I wish GM had updated the interiors on these trucks, if only so I wouldn't have to put up with people whining about here incessently.