RV industry death spiral...

[laknox]

I'm greatly looking forward to this series of articles over the next couple of weeks:

http://rvdailyreport.com/opinion/opinion-the-rv-industry-death-spiral-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment...

Lyle

[laknox]

Txsurfer wrote:
at what point did a "camper" turn into a condo on wheels? Expectations are high because the consumer wants to take his/her home with them and expect a vibrating / flexing mobile condo to be as solid / durable has a stick & brick home - well it's not and never will be. I would be willing to bet those that buy a low priced entry level trailer that is used for "camping" generally have a higher level of satisfaction than those buy a "glamping" rig.. just my take..fire away

So, you don't think that the mfrs should take all this into consideration when they design an RV? All RVs should leak or fall apart when driven or towed down the road? Gimme a break. You ever watch the wings on an airliner flex? That's mostly a metal structure out there that can flex +- 10-12 FEET, in some cases, and do it tens of thousands of times. You're saying that today's engineers can't design an RV that can withstand today's roads? Bull puckey. They =can=, and the mfrs =could= build them at a reasonable price, but they choose the cheap way out for higher margins because P.T. Barnum was right.

Lyle

[laknox]

thestoloffs wrote:

laknox wrote:
I've said for several years that one of the most basic things that an RV mfr could do would be to stop paying for piece-work and pay straight wages/salaries. Yes, this would cause a drop in production, but it almost certainly would lead to less warranty claims and higher customer satisfaction and increased sales. Profits would increase because supply would be less, therefore there would be less incentive to discount. Some sales would be lost due to higher prices, but these would almost certainly be customers who were marginally able to afford a particular unit to begin with.{snip}

Lyle, I agree with your approach. Here's my "proof":

I have a 2010 Born Free 26' Class C. It was built by a team of 4 people, not an assembly line, who are paid straight wages.

Born Free offers a 3 year bumper-to-bumper warranty on their work. However, the key to their QC is that, during those 3 years, every calendar quarter that no warranty claims are made against my coach -- that team receives a bonus.

So, if they build each coach right the first time, they'll be rewarded for the next 3 years!

OK, I concede that BF is a lower volume manufacturer than the Thor divisions, and that there are far less Class C's built each year than travel trailers.

But, why couldn't they run such a bonus plan for each workgroup on the line?

(BTW, I worked for both Chrysler & GM, so I have some insight on how large volume lines are organized and operated.)

Friggin' =brilliant=! This is exactly what I'm talking about! =Anything= to get the workers to take some pride in what they build, INCLUDING the executives.

Lyle

[Mr_Biggles]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
One of the "reasons" the author of the article quoted believes is symptomatic of the death of the RV industry is the supposed fact that only 3 percent of the workers in the RV industry own RVs. I would assume that would be the case in any luxury business. I doubt many workers at Boeing, or Gulfstream own a Boeing Business Jet or A Gulfstream G650. Doubt many of the line workers at Ferrari own a Testa Rosa. What percentage of Rolex employees were Rolexes? A dubious argument at best.

But many workers at Ford , GM, and FCA own F-150's , Silverado's and Rams. Quality in trucks has greatly improved over the years. Those workers are very proud of their products.

Gulfstream sells a handful of G650's in a month. The RV industry sells thousands of units in a month.

Your argument is not valid.

[obgraham]

I do agree that outside pressures will create a whole new business model for RV manufacturers. When you see what you can get in Europe for a fraction of what we pay here, or when you consider what the Chinese might produce once they enter the market, I believe the North American builders are in for a rude awakening.

Unfortunately it is their workers who will suffer rather than the business fat cats.

[Us_out_West]

This thread is really starting to stray...

[mlts22]

It all is about trade-offs. I bought an entry level travel trailer new, knowing that it is the "runt of the litter", because it had no slide-outs, and I would have to learn electrical, plumbing, and other skills in order to keep it maintained.

However, if I were to recommend a quality trailer that is not going to leak, or rot into uselessness in five years, I would recommend a horse trailer manufacturer (Bloomer Trailers out of Salado is one place), and have them do the job right. Just the fact that they use a one piece aluminum roof over rubber and aluminum framing will extend the life of the trailer well past almost anything "mass-produced" today.

A friend of mine had a trailer done this way. It has little in the way of plumbing and electrical (mainly an A/C with a heat strip), but it has gone through ice storms and 110+ degree heat easily. The trailer isn't really cared for, so it shows how well built it is when it just sits for months unused, which is a testament to how well Pace American built things.

[jeffcarp]

There is exceptional build quality available in every type of RV class. Almost all of them are boutique manufacturers making only hundreds of units per year. Why? Consumers can't afford that level of quality and workmanship. Part of the problem is consumer expectations. It's the same problem with people buying a starter home but they expect granite counters, whirlpool tubs and home theaters. Something has to give. The highest cost in any business is labor. Best way to hit a price point is to take labor out of the process. That directly effects build quality and workmanship.

People want to buy a trailer for the cost of a sub compact car yet they want a fireplace, an outside kitchen, a residential refrigerator and a 55" flat screen TV. Oh, and they want to tow it with a Toyota Rav4.

This industry only changes when customers stop giving bad manufacturers money instead of getting sucked into amenity rich coaches at a $200 monthly payment.

[1968mooney]

colliehauler wrote:
I hardly ever hear about quality issues with Newell or Provost conversion.

I think it would be "tacky" to give over 1 mil. for a MH and then complain about the quality. Only "cheap" people complain about quality after they inspect and then purchase a MH. If it does not meet your expectation, don't purchase it. Maybe I just don't understand. I have owned 2 MH for 6 yrs. Never carried it to a Dealer for repair and never complained on a forum about anything. :S

[colliehauler]

I hardly ever hear about quality issues with Newell or Provost conversion.

[2gypsies1]

RVs have been around for 100 years with many ups and downs in economy. Nothing is going to happen to RVing.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/commemorating-100-years-of-the-rv-56915006/?no-ist

[Cloud_Dancer]

Say NO to death! It just ain't going to happen! RVing is here to stay, because it's exciting and fun. But, just to cover my bases, my motorhome is prepped for doomsday.....:B:B

[Community Alumni]

"His real objective is to shine a light on those actions by the RV industry that hurt or are counterproductive to the health of the industry as a whole. This is laudable and needs to be done."

Well said!

[qtla9111]

It's not that easy to increase wages and give out bonuses. First things first are stockholders and people like rvers who want a return on their investment in their portfolio. We can all complain about minimum wage, CEO salaries, etc. but the bottom line is profit.

I doubt there are many rvers who don't shop at Walmart, or use the wifi at McDonald's over a cup of senior coffee. Why? People are cheap and they want things for next to nothing.

Using cheaper and lighter materials doesn't have to account for sloppy workmanship and rigs that leak because they weren't sealed properly to begin with.

I doubt you would buy a new car and take it for a leak test, smog inspection, etc. Why? Because there is regulation in the automotive industry. Above the frame on an rv, there is no regulation. That RVIA sticker doesn't mean squat.

[Txsurfer]

After dealing with boats for a long time I know that unless you are DIY type person you are going to be very frustrated having to take it in for every little thing. I think RVs are even worse and if you aren't DIY inclined then I can see where the rants come from. Personally I'd rather fix something myself ( $100 or less )then take it in for warranty work. 1. because its a hassle 2. because I'm going to treat my rig better than the avg tech.

[mlts22]

There are many ways to boost quality. Since there isn't the economy of scale auto makers have where having everything done by robot helps, the entire RV assembly has to be done my hand, but we have had companies and quality controls for a long time. Best way, have one round of work done, have it inspected and fixed by a different group, once it passes muster, do the second round, repeat. Have everyone on salary so the focus is not getting it done fast, but done well, especially if bonuses were given if warranty claims and sales were up to par.

I read about so many innovative things coming from RV parts makers... it would be nice to see those, be it cutting edge stuff, or just Seitz windows which are better than the common RV stuff we have in the US because they are double-paned.