In a full page ad in Automotive News, General Motors has apologized to the American people for designing lackluster vehicles that operate below industry standards. And, of course, for favoring gas guzzlers in a world that certainly does not need them.
They did not, however, apologize specifically for their treatment of the EV1, which is kinda lame. If you're going to grovel, you might as well hit all your bases.
Taking responsibility for the crisis is a pretty big deal, though they are quick to point out that they had been making the transition from sucky to less sucky long before bankruptcy was imminent. Their designs have been better, as have their warranties and repair stats. And, yes, we at EcoGeek are huge fans of the Chevrolet Volt.
The question is, do you buy it? Or more importantly, does congress buy it. Basically, GM is saying "we're really sorry we screwed up, made bad vehicles, and ran our company into the ground...and we promise we won't do it again if you just give us a huge pile of money."
You can see the full apology below.
Via AutoBlogGreen
GM'S COMMITMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
We deeply appreciate the Congress considering General Motors' request to borrow up to $18 billion from the United States. We want to be sure the American people know why we need it, what we'll do with it and how it will make GM viable for the long term.
For a century, we have been serving your personal mobility needs, providing American jobs and serving local communities. We have been the U.S. sales leader for 76 consecutive years. Of the 250 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads today, more than 66 million are GM brands - nearly 44 million more than Toyota brands. Our goal is to continue to fulfill your aspirations and exceed your expectations.
While we're still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster. We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market. We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs. And, we made commitments to compensation plans that have proven to be unsustainable in today's globally competitive industry. We have paid dearly for these decisions, learned from them and are working hard to correct them by restructuring our U.S. business to be viable for the long term.
Today, we have substantially overcome our quality gap; our newest designs like the Chevrolet Malibu and Cadillac CTS are widely heralded for their appeal; our new products are nearly all cars and "crossovers" rather than pick-ups and SUVs; our factories have greatly improved productivity and our labor agreements are much more competitive. We are also driven to lead in fuel economy, with more hybrid models for sale and biofuel-capable vehicles on the road than any other manufacturer, and determined to reinvent the automobile with products like the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle and breakthrough technology like hydrogen fuel cells.
Until recent events, we felt the actions we'd been taking positioned us for a bright future. Just a year ago, after we reached transformational agreements with our unions, industry analysts were forecasting a positive GM turnaround. We had adequate cash on hand to continue our restructuring even under relatively conservative industry sales volume assumptions. Unfortunately, along with all Americans, we were hit by a "perfect storm." Over the past year we have all faced volatile energy prices, the collapse of the U.S. housing market, failing financial institutions, a stock market crash and the complete freezing of credit. We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just like you, we have been severely impacted by events outside our control. U.S. auto industry sales have fallen to their lowest per capita rate in half a century. Despite moving quickly to reduce our planned spending by over $20 billion, GM finds itself precariously and frighteningly close to running out of cash.
This is why we need to borrow money from U.S. taxpayers. If we run out of cash, we will be unable to pay our bills, sustain our operations and invest in advanced technology. A collapse of GM and the domestic auto industry will accelerate the downward spiral of an already anemic U.S. economy. This will be devastating to all Americans, not just GM stakeholders, because it would put millions of jobs at risk and deepen our recession. By lending GM money, you will provide us with a financial bridge until the U.S. economy and auto sales return to modestly healthy levels. This will allow us to keep operating and complete our restructuring.
We submitted a plan to Congress Dec. 2, 2008, detailing our commitments to ensure our viability, strengthen our competitiveness, and deliver energy-efficient products. Specifically, we are committed to:
• produce automobiles you want to buy and are excited to own
• lead the reinvention of the automobile based on promising new technology
• focus on our core brands to consistently deliver on their promises
• streamline our dealer network to ensure the best sales and service
• ensure sacrifices are shared by all GM stakeholders
• meet appropriate standards for executive pay and corporate governance
• work with our unions to quickly realize competitive wages and benefits
• reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil
• protect our environment
• pay you back the entire loan with appropriate oversight and returns
These actions, combined with a modest rebound of the U.S. economy, should allow us to begin repaying you in 2011.
In summary, our plan is designed to provide a secure return on your investment in GM's future. We accept the conditions of your loan, the commitments of our plan, and the results needed to transform our business for long-term success. We will contribute to strengthening U.S. energy and environmental security. We will contribute to America's technical and manufacturing know-how and create high quality jobs for the "new economy." And, we will continue to deliver personal mobility freedom to Americans using the most advanced transportation solutions. We are proud of our century of contribution to U.S. prosperity and look forward to making an equally meaningful contribution during our next 100 years.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Joel Williams, December 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Adam, December 08, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roper, December 08, 2008
The US (and unfortunately now the rest of world) is headed into a depression much more severe than the 1930s, yet it looks like people are still being conned. What you guys are looking at is a rearrangement of the global power base.
'Globalization' was only ever code for Americanisation, however what is required now is true globalization. The world cannot afford more profligate wasteage of resources on the American consumer.
Allowing the Big Three to fail will assist the world in making a sustainable recovery from this disaster.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tsmith, December 09, 2008
These actions, combined with a modest rebound of the U.S. economy, should allow us to begin repaying you in 2011.
They list out a bunch of actions, all of which lack specific targets, but are at least specific in nature. Then in order to repay the loan, they must see a "modest rebound in the US economy" ... when and how much?
The economy is not going to rebound tomorrow, and may stay down for many years to come. Putting in weasle words like that makes it easy for them to state that the rebound didn't happen soon enough, or wasn't substantial enough to allow them to pay it back.
Let them collapse - someone will pick up the pieces and make a go of it. The demand and market is there.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, December 09, 2008
Could someone please explain this sentiment to me? In a rational way....
Today, years later, we can't build an electric car that most of us could afford. The closest we have is the Tesla, a quite small two seater, which has decent range but requires hours to recharge and sells for over $100,000. And the Tesla has access to much better batteries than were available back in the EV1 days.
The EV1 had a restricted range, long recharge time, was very degraded by cold temperatures, and was about as expensive as the Tesla. It was so expensive that GM had to lease out a few demonstrator models. Only those with very deep pockets would have bought one.
The EV1 was a loser in terms of a mass produced car.
Now, I assume that GM continued to research EVs. They did work on hydrogen fuel cell engines. But where is the evil in not continuing to offer a car on which they could make, only lose, money?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jason Kratz, December 09, 2008
The lease-only aspect of the EV1 was due to the experimental nature of the car.
I really suggest reading the Wikipedia entry. And then I suggest watching the documenary. The evil was in how the project was killed...not the car itself. GM killed it for other reasons...low demand was not one of them.
EV1 wasn't a loser in terms of a mass-produced car. They killed the project too early to know.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dirtysouth_boy, December 09, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matt Arozian, December 09, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by bobbobberson, December 09, 2008
I could buy a 2010 Honda insight for 19,000 and drop in a 5k battery and have a plug in hybrid for a total of 29k. (look at this company: http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion ) This is less than the GM volt and available now. What is GM's problem? I hope they die! They are an overpriced bureaucratic company and should be allowed to die.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, December 09, 2008
And I've read the Wiki page. If you've read it carefully then you know about the battery problems, the cost, the limited market, ....
"The lease-only aspect of the EV1 was due to the experimental nature of the car."
What market do you think existed for a limited range car selling for $80,000 ?
Would you pay $1,500 per month to buy a limited range, limited driving conditions car? ($80,000, 6%, 5 years.)
One that could only be driven in mild to hot weather? Well, not actually hot weather, only mild to warm.
I really don't get the feeling that people "get it" when it comes to battery powered cars.
We do not yet have adequate batteries. We may have them very soon. Nissan, for example, is promising an all electric car in 2010(2011?).
But back when the EV1 was tried out it was not physically possible to build an electric car that would replace the ICE for a significant portion of drivers.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian Hayes, December 10, 2008
Rant is no good without rightness and rightness is cruel without empathy. Yeh sure, we've been screwed by oligarchs, a few at GM. We've died for it. But respect is important for our enemies too.
Reducing GM's advert to peccadillo about EV-1 is a strategic and tactical error. In order for a good pasting to stick, it's important to look true and deep.
I've been looking for the actual source document. I found this pdf release.
GM calls it "personal transportation". They claim they've been good at it over the years and will be better in the future. But transportation has been anything but personal.
Decades of railroading rights of way may be the top social issue with very little said about the highways for the cars, oops, I mean, about the forest for the trees.
This is the first corporate mea culpa in my lifetime. Even Nixon wasn't so brave. What do we truly feel? Is GM offering to help make America better or merely pleading to dance the same ol' same ol' if we buy a new and pretty dress?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian Hayes, December 10, 2008
Rant is no good without rightness and rightness is cruel without empathy. Yeh sure, we've been screwed by oligarchs, a few at GM. Bullies have hurt us deeply over the years and it's a big issue. We've died for it. But it's important to respect enemies too.
Reducing GM's advert to peccadillo about EV-1 or door handles that fall off is a strategic and tactical error. In order for glue to stick, it's important to squeeze.
I've been looking for the actual source document. I found this pdf release.
GM calls their product "personal transportation". They claim they've been good at it over the years and will be better in the future. But transportation has been anything but personal. We bought and paved America for it.
Decades of railroading rights of way may be the top social issue. Very very little is said about the highways for the cars, oops, I mean, about the forest for the trees.
This is the first corporate mea culpa in my lifetime. Even Nixon wasn't so brave. What do we truly feel?
Is GM offering to help make America better or merely pleading to dance the same ol' same ol' if we buy a new and pretty dress?
Transportation isn't solved yet. Trips and us. There's a lot more questions to ask than whether we pump or plug.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ecoFreak, February 08, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by HeadTater, April 26, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
DEC 08
"At least GM is apologizing unlike companies like AIG. Besides, you can..."
View all Comments