Why would Ford motors be financially okay unless GM or Chrysler go under?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avatar2068
  • Start date Start date
A

avatar2068

Guest
When GM and Chrysler said they would go under unless bailed out by the early part of 2009 Ford Motor Co. reps stated that they would be alright unless one of the other two went under. Would this not have the opposite effect? If Ford had one(or two) less competitors would they not do better instead of worse, or are they going with the GM version of economics where the job losses would so injure the U.S. economy that even the auto maker that stands after the others fail would not have enough customers to stay afloat?
 
Nothing is fixed until they can outsell Honda and Toyota. Bailouts and mergers are only temporary band-aids.
 
Many of the auto manufacturers share common suppliers. Some of those suppliers could go bankrupt if any of the Big-3 actually fail. That could have a knock-on affect for the rest of the industry.

They also share a lot of R&D and a surprising amount of common parts. The new 6-speed automatics offered in some Fords and GMs are a shared design.
 
I have a follow up to this question:

If the failure of GM and Chrysler would cause Ford to fail, why wouldn't it cause Toyota, Honda, VW, BMW, and all the other American made foreign car companies to go under, too?

BTW - I own a Ford and a GM, and I know exactly why these companies are in trouble. Their cars suck.
 
Because the discount they receive on parts would be slashed as the demand for such parts would be less with the loss of the other two and some part suppliers could just not stay in business which would lead to less competition and higher prices which would cause Ford to not afford to be able to build cars
 
Back
Top