I've got these somewhere, but I'd need to do some digging... Stay tuned.sferrin said:Wish they'd have gone back further so you could see things like the McDonnell/Douglas merger, North American becoming part of Rockwell, Convair to General Dynamics, etc.
By all means, please do!!!!taildragger said:During these consolidations, Air International ran a cartoon making light of the end result. It depicted a small aircraft with "British Aerospace" painted on the fuselage being passed on the taxiway by an enormous superjumbo painted with the name "McDohop Boheed". I'll try to post it if I can find it.
Wrong on both accountsADVANCEDBOY said:1. Pontiac, Hammer, Plymouth, Mercury, Oldsmobile-all of them were starved to death from R&D standpoint.
2. and even that is unable to construct an airplane using only domestic expertize
3. if most companies managed to do R&D and actual engineering work at home be it tv sets, cars, wristwatches or airplanes
false. Those companies were "gobbled" in the 20's and 30's, so the point doesn't stand. There was R&D money spent on them.Hobbes said:Pontiac, Hummer, Plymouth, Mercury, Oldsmobile all were independent companies at some point. GM gobbled them up and tried to use them as brands/product lines, which was a dismal failure in all cases. Hummer got clobbered by the drop in demand for oversized SUVs, but the others? Prime examples of badge engineering, where they tried to sell the same bodyshell with minimal trim changes under the various brands. None of these brands got any R&D money spent on them by GM. Advancedboy's point stands.
False.jsport said:A full two thirds of USG contract resource goes to only 200 companies according to Bloomberg. If US Public servants are serious about the return of manufacturing to the US, some sort of gov'n lead change is in order, as the traditional market forces will not accomplish this goal.
Plymouth: badge engineering since the '70s, no brand worth speaking of by 1990.Byeman said:false. Those companies were "gobbled" in the 20's and 30's, so the point doesn't stand. There was R&D money spent on them.Hobbes said:Pontiac, Hummer, Plymouth, Mercury, Oldsmobile all were independent companies at some point. GM gobbled them up and tried to use them as brands/product lines, which was a dismal failure in all cases. Hummer got clobbered by the drop in demand for oversized SUVs, but the others? Prime examples of badge engineering, where they tried to sell the same bodyshell with minimal trim changes under the various brands. None of these brands got any R&D money spent on them by GM. Advancedboy's point stands.
That was my point, they weren't companies, but product lines supported by one company.Hobbes said:Plymouth: badge engineering since the '70s, no brand worth speaking of by 1990.
Mercury: badge engineering since 1945, amounts to no more than a trim level between Ford and Lincoln.
Oldsmobile and Pontiac had their own models, granted. But there was very little to differentiate beween Olds, Pontiac and Chevrolet, so ultimately no reason to keep them around.
For all of GM USA, R&D was kept to a minimum for decades as GM rested on its laurels and was oblivious of the mounting competition. Soon enough, GM had no answer to better-built, better-equipped and better-engineered cars from Japan. All they had was road barges with appalling build quality and 1970s technology, and SUVs that were no more than a truck chassis with a passenger cabin shoved on top. R&D? GM had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
Comments like the above show no concept of reality, and complete lack of knowledge on the subject matter. I am neither a paid lobbist, nor a high level bureaucrat and I am interested in science and innovation having been in the space program for 30 years, much of it working with small science teams.jsport said:Comments like "US Public Servants do not determine who bids on contracts." and the "remaining 1/3 is widely distributed" reflects either the bias of a paid lobbist, or a high level bureaucrat who has no interest in science or innovation but does have interest in their own interest exclusively.
Was in the USAF, worked for a prime and been a GS. So probably seen more than you (and more SETA's). Wouldn't put up with any shenigans no matter which side of the fence I was on.jsport said:Unfortunately, respectfully, have to say there is a private Idaho in the ether here all right. .. have worked in this world since the eighties and have witnessed repeated majors attempting to SETA (wonder if you know what that is)
1. You had to have or the web versions yellow press or tabloids because you came to the grossly wrong conclusion. Just like your cloud seeding. Those are two strikes and I bet I can find a third, hence you have no credibility on any topic what so ever.ADVANCEDBOY said:1. @byeman- I am not going into moonhoax dissection, as that would endanger my status here. Anyway, I didn`t come to a conclusion of moonhoax by scanning some yellow press or tabloids, I took a research about a half year long, and only then drew a conclusion.
2. This was a short description of car industry. I bet you can substitute the entry ` car` with airplane, bikes, consumer electronics, trucks, trains, ...you see the point.
What you believe and reality are two different things.ADVANCEDBOY said:I still tend to believe that it has to do with lack of engineering skills and expert workforce.
1. No, they are cheaper laborwiseADVANCEDBOY said:1.
Funny, how they chose these quiet expensive countries labourwise.
2. And even then sending these parts overseas by a specially reengineered 747( done by russians).
Huh? Income tax has no bearing on labor costs. Income tax is on the worker and not born by the companies and hence they do not pass it on.Hobbes said:That's not the cause of higher labor cost in the US. If health and retirement are funded by the government, they have to set taxes to finance these. A large proportion of these will be funded through income tax. You'll see that the income tax rate is much higher in Europe than in the US.