GMs new secret weapon......LOL

mich800,

Terryallen stated in his post that his company was a tier 3 supplier to GM.

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
In case you didn't know, buick in china is like bmw here. They really like the buicks. Guess the quality must be pretty good and they are a change from the cookie cutter cars found there.

It is the case. Buick is very popular in China. It is a car with great status in China and from what I understand this Chinese view of Buick goes back many decades.

One of our vehicles is a 2007 Buick sedan, bought new in 2007 and I have to say after living with it since then I've changed my mind about Buick's.

I got past the old man's car stereotype after a year or so and I find it to be an excellent automobile. Very quiet, comfortable, capable, reliable and not at all a big, wallowing land barge as many (including me before I bought it :B) seem to think it is.

I have found the quality to be excellent. I originally bought my Buick because I'm a little on the large size at 6'3" + and 245 lbs with bad hockey knees.

I need to drive with my right leg pretty well stretched out and at the time a Buick sedan was about the only car with enough leg room and a firm, supportive seat which would comfortably accommodate me.

If you told me that 10 years before I'd be driving a Buick sedan....I would of been surprised.

But I'm glad I made the choice.

Terryallan wrote:

travelnutz wrote:
Terryallen,

Sorry I didn't get back to your post earlier as it's Mothers Day and lots of happenings at church this morning.

"bimbert84" had posted what tier literally means and it's 3rd down the line of suppliers. Tier 3 is a component sub-supplier to tier 2 who is a component partial assembly sub-supplier to tier 1 who has the actual supplier contract to supply the finished assembly using components from sub-supplier tier levels, be it black box, or gray box item complete ready to install at the assembly line of the manufacturer on a JIT (Just In Time) basis.

Manufacturer's today usually have a max inventory of 4 hours line run time supply of vehicle components on their floor especially if the component is of any physical size. This does not include items such as fasteners and other small bulk type items. The tier 1 supplier is the controller of and the responsibility of their contractural agreement with the manufacturer and physically/controls the inventory themselves to supply JIT. Be it in house in transit to the assembly line and dictates to it's sub-suppliers as to the inventory they are authorized and required to have on hand and also materials purchasing releases for purchased items. That is why they are called TIERS. It's a pipeline of JIT as much as practical or possible to the final assembly line of finished items/assemblies for vehicle build. GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc do NOT inventory components in house and haven't for many years, like since the 1980's.

Tier 3 is way down the line of component supply levels!

Then I guess I was wrong. Or miss informed, Not the first time for either. Because our product goes directly to GM, Ford, who ever, fully assembled, and it bolted on with no added componets from any one else. It even arrives at the line full of oil, and already ran, and checked for noise. For Vetts it arrives married to the trans.

It all depends on who your purchase order is with. If it is with the OEM's and that is who pays you than you are a tier 1. Perhaps you are manufacturing for the Tier 1 or other but they have you ship directly to the OEM but get paid by that Tier 1. Then you are Tier 2+ depending on your order in the food chain. So the short answer is who is your purchase order with.

Terryallan wrote:

JALLEN4 wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
Why did they wait so long?

:h not sure what you mean by this. Has GM had issues with previous new product launches? I think why they have done this is due to the fact their (every auto manufacture) vendors are lite in the engineer area maybe.

Don

To try to come up to Ford's truck standard. To try to be more like Ford. Their trucks have remained virtually unchanged for the last several years, While Ford has marched steadily forward. The only place GM is expanding in, Is China. They have lost 70,000 jobs in the US since the bailout. They are growing in China. We in effect paid them to move jobs to China.

That would really be a mis-representation of facts. GM is down 76,000 jobs in the U.S. dating back to 2005. Since the bailout, they have actually added 23,000+ jobs and invested around 11 billion in North America. More than has been invested in China.

GM would be remiss if they were not investing heavily in China. The Chinese new vehicle market is now substantially larger than the U.S. market and GM is now selling more cars there than in the U.S. The projections are for the China market to be double the annual U.S. market volume by 2020.

It would be erroneous to characterize GM sending jobs to China at the expense of U.S. jobs. It is an international market and what is happening is no different than Toyota building cars in the U.S. At least in this case, the profits are flowing back to the U.S. rather than going the other way.

that is not the way it was reported Friday. Accoring to what I saw friday. GM has shed 70,000 since the bailout, and is in fact only growing in China. And that is due to the Luxury car market growing in China. Not my ststs. But CNBC's

CNBC would have been wrong Friday, if that is what they actually said. It is indusputable that GM has added jobs since the level of employment when the bankruptcy was announced. Just simply look it up.

The only way it can be construed that GM has lost jobs would be to count the loss of approximately 65,000 jobs at dealerships who were cancelled. A stretch since they never worked for GM to start with.

Terry do you have a link for that story. I haven't seen anything about GM shedding jobs. Just the opposite they have added jobs here in the US.

Don

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
JALLEN4 it is no surprise since most of our jobs have been sent over there. The Chinese market rose to 13.6 million total units (cars, buses and trucks) compared to 10.4 million here in the States. Again thanks to Corporate America's greed and their pursuit too put as much money in their grubby little (large really) pockets as they can.

Don

The number of sales in 2012 were 19.3 million in China and 14.5 million in U.S. China has an estimated 1,344,130,000 population while the U.S. has 311,591,917.

There is little question why China would sell more units now and many more units in the future since they have a billion more people!

Since China GM sends no cars to the U.S. at the present time, it makes it rather difficult to argue our automotive production jobs were sent to China.

Terryallan wrote:

JALLEN4 wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
Why did they wait so long?

:h not sure what you mean by this. Has GM had issues with previous new product launches? I think why they have done this is due to the fact their (every auto manufacture) vendors are lite in the engineer area maybe.

Don

To try to come up to Ford's truck standard. To try to be more like Ford. Their trucks have remained virtually unchanged for the last several years, While Ford has marched steadily forward. The only place GM is expanding in, Is China. They have lost 70,000 jobs in the US since the bailout. They are growing in China. We in effect paid them to move jobs to China.

That would really be a mis-representation of facts. GM is down 76,000 jobs in the U.S. dating back to 2005. Since the bailout, they have actually added 23,000+ jobs and invested around 11 billion in North America. More than has been invested in China.

GM would be remiss if they were not investing heavily in China. The Chinese new vehicle market is now substantially larger than the U.S. market and GM is now selling more cars there than in the U.S. The projections are for the China market to be double the annual U.S. market volume by 2020.

It would be erroneous to characterize GM sending jobs to China at the expense of U.S. jobs. It is an international market and what is happening is no different than Toyota building cars in the U.S. At least in this case, the profits are flowing back to the U.S. rather than going the other way.

Not my ststs. But CNBC's

And that is where the problem is.....

travelnutz wrote:
Terryallen,

Sorry I didn't get back to your post earlier as it's Mothers Day and lots of happenings at church this morning.

"bimbert84" had posted what tier literally means and it's 3rd down the line of suppliers. Tier 3 is a component sub-supplier to tier 2 who is a component partial assembly sub-supplier to tier 1 who has the actual supplier contract to supply the finished assembly using components from sub-supplier tier levels, be it black box, or gray box item complete ready to install at the assembly line of the manufacturer on a JIT (Just In Time) basis.

Manufacturer's today usually have a max inventory of 4 hours line run time supply of vehicle components on their floor especially if the component is of any physical size. This does not include items such as fasteners and other small bulk type items. The tier 1 supplier is the controller of and the responsibility of their contractural agreement with the manufacturer and physically/controls the inventory themselves to supply JIT. Be it in house in transit to the assembly line and dictates to it's sub-suppliers as to the inventory they are authorized and required to have on hand and also materials purchasing releases for purchased items. That is why they are called TIERS. It's a pipeline of JIT as much as practical or possible to the final assembly line of finished items/assemblies for vehicle build. GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc do NOT inventory components in house and haven't for many years, like since the 1980's.

Tier 3 is way down the line of component supply levels!

Then I guess I was wrong. Or miss informed, Not the first time for either. Because our product goes directly to GM, Ford, who ever, fully assembled, and it bolted on with no added componets from any one else. It even arrives at the line full of oil, and already ran, and checked for noise. For Vetts it arrives married to the trans.

JALLEN4 wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
Why did they wait so long?

:h not sure what you mean by this. Has GM had issues with previous new product launches? I think why they have done this is due to the fact their (every auto manufacture) vendors are lite in the engineer area maybe.

Don

To try to come up to Ford's truck standard. To try to be more like Ford. Their trucks have remained virtually unchanged for the last several years, While Ford has marched steadily forward. The only place GM is expanding in, Is China. They have lost 70,000 jobs in the US since the bailout. They are growing in China. We in effect paid them to move jobs to China.

That would really be a mis-representation of facts. GM is down 76,000 jobs in the U.S. dating back to 2005. Since the bailout, they have actually added 23,000+ jobs and invested around 11 billion in North America. More than has been invested in China.

GM would be remiss if they were not investing heavily in China. The Chinese new vehicle market is now substantially larger than the U.S. market and GM is now selling more cars there than in the U.S. The projections are for the China market to be double the annual U.S. market volume by 2020.

It would be erroneous to characterize GM sending jobs to China at the expense of U.S. jobs. It is an international market and what is happening is no different than Toyota building cars in the U.S. At least in this case, the profits are flowing back to the U.S. rather than going the other way.

that is not the way it was reported Friday. Accoring to what I saw friday. GM has shed 70,000 since the bailout, and is in fact only growing in China. And that is due to the Luxury car market growing in China. Not my ststs. But CNBC's

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
JALLEN4 it is no surprise since most of our jobs have been sent over there. The Chinese market rose to 13.6 million total units (cars, buses and trucks) compared to 10.4 million here in the States. Again thanks to Corporate America's greed and their pursuit too put as much money in their grubby little (large really) pockets as they can.

Don

Agree and know from the inside of a $17/billion/year computer corporation

Back in the 90's argued at executive staff when the idea of outsourcing
came up

First it was only manufacturing of 'lesser' components and assemblies

Then higher in the foodchain assemblies

Then some software coding, but no source code (crown jewels)

The exec's were always pretty steamed at my comments, as they were
making tons of money via bonuses and options because of the higher
margins afforded. I made more money too

Then they wanted to send source code to India. What the @#$#?? and
'forced' to send one of my lawyers to negotiate that deal, as I was
caught up in some other deals

She called me around 2am to ask if it was okay to have our source
code reside on the same server as Microsoft's...she knew, but needed
wanted my approval

Sent it up the pole with recommendation of 'NO'...got over ruled
but insisted that we paid for a server of our own and in another building

That was repeated throughout the corporation for the next two decades

One of my main points was that 'we' were paying to build up 'their'
infrastructure and educate 'their' staff.

Kinda sorta okay if they would now, or could not become competitive
'peers' to us...that happened when source code and other design files
were transmitted to 'them'...along with all the 'safe guards' my peers
who did the deal installed...of course not enough

'We' have not paid them to become 'peers' to our engineers and worse
yet is that engineering schools have been seeing a decline in students
and the business schools an increase (MBA)...as that is where the money is

Not just my corporation, but most all corporations I personally dealt
with and every one read about

Bottom line is that the cat is out of the bag and get used to it.

Savor of sorts is that our population is more 'outside of the box'
types than 'over there', but our kids are becoming drones just like
them what with the video games, etc...