TS vs AN
Step right up, folks!
Step right up to watch the battle of the century. A David vs Goliath classic featuring the might of Automotive News and the minnow that is Trollhattan Saab.
In the Blue corner, weighing in at 7,000 page views per day, with a number of insiders in his corner and a big, angry bug biting his a$$ - it’s Trollhattan Saaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbb!
And in the red corner, weighing in at a gazillion paid subscribers, supported by one union official with a vested interest in keeping his job as a union official - it’s Autoooooo–Motiiiiiiiiiiive Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwsss.
Yes, Automotive News (subs req’d) are stating that the next Saab 9-3 being built on GM’s compact car architecture (what we refer to around here as Delta 2) is little more than a rumour. They cite Klaus Franz, the head of the workers union for GM Employees in Europe, who’s stamping his feet to get a third shift up and running at Russelsheim in 2010:
He said the union has a contract with the company to make three variants of the Insignia, a hatchback, sedan and station wagon, and three Saab models: sedan and hatchback versions of the 9-5 and the 9-3.
There has been media speculation that the new Saab 9-3 could be built on GM’s Delta platform — which underpins the lower-medium Astra.
Such a decision could mean that 9-3 production would be kept at Saab’s main factory in Trollhättan, Sweden, rather than move to Rüsselsheim.
Franz denied the rumors. He said the 9-3 is needed to meet a production goal of 275,000 units promised by GM in 2004.
Franz’s theory here is that GM will design and build their next Saab based 9-3 not on what will be successful and what will be required to make the model mix right. Rather, they’ll base that whole model development program - possibly the most important in Saab’s history - on what will allow them to hire an extra 800 workers in one factory in Germany.
Franz, whatever you’re on, stop taking it.
The “9-3 on Delta” decision has been passed on to me through several different sources now. A majority of those sources work within GM Europe, unlike Klaus Franz.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!! NEXT?
–
Thanks to Albert and EduSaab!
More from this category
- SaabUSA BYO website - what have they done??
- Saab Krazy in Italy!!!
- Non-standard Saab interiors
- Aussies upgrading
More from this author
- SaabUSA BYO website - what have they done??
- Darth Vader and his Turbo X
- GM bailout updates
- New ALU81 wheels now available
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Rune (the other one) on GM bailout updates
- Ryan M on SaabUSA BYO website - what have they done??
- eggsngrits on Hemming’s Buyers Guide - Saab 900 Turbo SPG
- JWD on Could GM sell Saab - even if they wanted to?
- Charles on SaabUSA BYO website - what have they done??
- volvo troll on GM bailout updates
- MitchbSC on SaabUSA BYO website - what have they done??
- turbocon86 on Hemming’s Buyers Guide - Saab 900 Turbo SPG
- Zal on Saab Barn Find (sort of) - for sale!
- joemama on GM bailout updates
He’s dreaming or he’s been drinking the same brew as those journos at Autozeitung, only more of it! Anyway I’m sure they’ll end up making more Epicas than they ever would’ve made 9-3s, so he won’t have too much to complain about.
A strike at Russelsheim would be pretty disasterous for Saab, and probably for Opel, too, so this news is a little unsettling. Even so, the Delta rumors seem to be coming from reliable sources. There’s got to be more to this, I doubt GM would take away an entire model range from Russelsheim without having some sort of plan to appease the union/plant bosses.
Rüsselsheim might be one factory in Germany but it is OPEL’s HQ and their main production plant. If anyone gets a whiff of a change in plan then that usually warrants a 3 day strike action just to be safe!
It’s is possible that Rüsselsheim could stamp their feet and scream enough to make GM change the 9-3 decision. But I sure hope this does not happen.
GM made Trohättan and Rüsselsheim battle it out in 2003 to find out which could be the most cost effective plant to produce the next Epsilon architecture. Rüsselsheim won that battle despite government incentives from Sweden, It’s also possible that Rüsselsheim conveniently did not mention that Germany would have a toll system in place for trucks by the time Epsilon would be ready for production further increasing transports costs.
There is another theory that could have involved the workers council; where should GM run into industrial action it would be cheaper to reach an agreement with the Swedish workers.
So come that press conference in April 2004 when it was announced that Rüsselsheim would produce the next Vectra and that the next generation 9-3 and 9-5 would move from Sweden to Germany in 2008, GM hasn’t kept their promise on that piece of news either.
So how much more of the press conference should anyone bank on as being a full gone conclusion.
We don’t have a new Vectra, The 9-5 has been delayed, we were also told that Saab would get an SUV namely the 9-6x and we know that went the way of the dodo. All of this was said at the very same conference.
So there ya go Automotive News and Mr Franz
That’s 3 promises broken by GM, I guess one more won’t make a blind bit of difference 4 years on.
I hate that unions think that they run the company. They don’t. Their interests, as Swade has nicely pointed out, are in conflict with the OEM a great part of the time. Gettlefinger and crew have crippled the big three with their demands. Germany has a hugely protectionist quota system that keeps their domestic automakers afloat. Bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM, and bad for the unoin in the long run.
I hate that unions think that they run the company. They don’t. Their interests, as Swade has nicely pointed out, are in conflict with the OEM a great part of the time. Gettlefinger and crew have crippled the big three with their demands. Germany has a hugely protectionist quota system that keeps their domestic automakers afloat. Bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM, and bad for the union in the long run.
Hear hear!
Well, while I am hopeful that the 9-3 will come back home, I would point out that Franz’ argument wasn’t, “GM is doing this for my union jobs,” so much as, “GM has a contract with my union to do this, and from that I gather that they intend to do it.” The contract is an indication of their intentions, not a motivation. Sort of like if I said, “GM just built a sign for Russelheim that says, ‘The home of the 2009 9-3, so it’s staying here.” I’m not implying that they are keeping it here in order to make the sign come true.
Saab must build the next 9-3 on the platform that best suits their model plans and marketing strategies, not what a union decides is best. There have been enough mistakes already. Anyway RüsselsheimSaab doesn’t rool off the tongue too well!
What we don’t know is that a new contract may already be in place and Automotive News is working on old infomation. This is just another reason why leaked info can be such a hazard. Unfortunately the same situation in Antwerp happened, even though GM had contracted the Saturn Astra to that plant. Workers still went on strike with the news that Trollhattan was hoping to produce the next generation Delta platform and it was reported that it could mean the closure of plants in either Germany, Belgium or England. The media whipped the workers into a frenzy and I believe it was 3 weeks before production resumed again.
Contracts are made to secure jobs and production, naturally binding each party to fulfill their pledge. But should a production plant jepodise a model and potentially a complete company by sticking to what was originally written 4 years previous? Should a plant and manufacturing company not be working together securing a longterm future even if it means short term a production output of around 200,000 as opposed to 260,000? However; GM have already said that should the 9-3 continue to be built in Trollhattan then the Chevrolet Epica would be used to bolster the short fall. If this is the case the question is, will GM’s plant in Russia be just as confontational with the proposal of a cut in production there instead?