Saturn Production Stopped at Two Plants--unspecified production problems

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I wonder what the unspecified production problems might be.... Aren't these exactly the sorts of things the media was supposed to be looking for...anybody care to ask GM the obvious question...it hasn't been answered here...

Thursday January 6 3:43 AM ET Yahoo reports

Saturn Production Stopped at Two Plants

General Motors Corp.'s Saturn division, which entered the mid-size car market with its new L-Series last summer, has stopped production of the vehicle until Jan. 18 due to excess inventory and production problems, officials said on Wednesday.

Link

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000106/bs/autos_saturn_1.html

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherep@aol.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

Hmm, "excess inventory and production problems". That would be what, too much *and* too little?

Looks like they're covering all the bases.

Maybe next week, they can complain that they have more employees than they need, and even worse, they come in late for work.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 06, 2000.


Carl,

Read, or re-read the book 1984, and then chalk this up as another example of the "Ministry of Truth". There will be no admission of y2k errors. In 2 weeks, anyone talking about y2k errors will be labelled "dangerously obssessed" and a candidate for some new drug called Y2k be-gone. Minds that had the capability to grasp y2k prepared. All the rest are either dazed deer or mockers. Do not expect a favorable response to logical questions such as yours here.

Simply stay prepared; the next crisis will not be announced with a 2 year lead!!

-- (He Who )Rolls with Punches (JoeZi@aol.com), January 06, 2000.


Carl, again with the "disaster" gotta be a Y2K thing! How will we ever see any REAL links to Y2K if EVERY LITTLE DISASTER OUT THERE is printed here as a Y2K disaster?

I know that it will prove difficult to find such a link, but without one, we not only LOOK foolish, we ARE foolish.

Disaster happen every day and not all of them are related to Y2K.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 06, 2000.


Hi Joe, 1984, yes...but my question was really rhetorical. To ynott (as in ynottwutuapeare2b?) I never said this was connected to y2k....I merely raised the question. It may be or may not. But the types of posts I have been bringing here are exactly the sorts of things that reporters have a duty to ask responsible questions about... They aren't doing that. Oh, and I don't have any illusions about the media. It is a whorehouse. I know, I was a broadcast news director for a number of years and got ousted when I refused to let my knickers down for the sales department at my station. Oh, and unlike you, I'm not afraid to let people know who I am....

-- Carl Jenkins (Somehwerepress@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Oops, gave wrong e-mail....here's correct

-- (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 06, 2000.


I am gonna keep posting this till people GET IT.

Many on this forum share your concern. Most of us want to here the truth about failures. There is only one problem. Because of the Fed law regarding Y2K legal matters, and the Insurance Industries stand on Y2K claims, no business in their right mind will admit to a problem associated with Y2K. IT WOULD BE PLAIN FOOLISHNESS TO DO SO. In light of that, it seems prudent for those of us really concerned about the REAL impact of Y2K to post any reasonable failure that seems to be of a Y2K nature. It may take weeks or months of trend analysis to determine if real failures have increased because of Y2K.

-- Shockwave (VISSION441@AOL.COM), January 06, 2000.


Oops, you just lost me, Ynott. A 12 day stoppage at 2 different plants seems newsworthy (at any time!), whatever the reason. We're talking about a lot of working Joes there. Sure, context, context. Is GM usually this inefficient? It seems unlikely.

Also, Carl doesn't scream "Y2K!", but he quite reasonably points out that the question should be asked; even if the answer couldn't be anything other than "no".

Bear in mind that it's largely irrelevant whether failures are Y2K related or not. The only salient point is whether they effect us as individuals and consumers. No cars at 2 plants for 12 days isn't cause for screaming panic, but it's another interesting statistic. If I can't buy a car, or gas to put in it, then I don't really care what the claimed causes are, that HURTS me.

Rather than pillorying the useful reporters along with the pointless speculators, we should be thanking them. So, thanks Carl.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


I recant. Carl, you're a nonce. ;)

Saturn has also stopped production until Jan. 18 at its second plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., where it makes the S-Series small car, because of production preparations for a new sport utility vehicle to be launched next year.

Saturn President Cynthia Trudell said that inventories of the new L- Series rose to 20,000 units in December because of a year-end blitz by Toyota Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.'s to sell more Camrys and Accords

It's a financial decision. The "excess inventory" isn't parts, it's complete cars. They can't sell the ones they've got. That's a valid reason for stopping production, and it's not a cause for consumer concern. There's no shortage of cars, there's too many.

OK, there's still "production problems" at the L-series plant that I'd like to know more about, but the original quote was out of context.

Link

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


Carl,

You're the man!!!!!!!!

I have noticed how some folks are quick to jump on somebody who is merely asking a question or wondering about a cause for different incidents. I have also noticed how mean spirited some of these responses have been, and yet these folks have the nerve to call somebody else a fear monger, crook, or whatever...then they do not even have the guts to list a real name or correct email.

I used to be in the journalism field and worked for several publications, although I am now disabled. I can tell you this much, it is not what most people would think. It's about whatever "sells", be it newspapers or magazines, because the bottom line is money. And, an editor wants to make the publisher happy, and publishers are happy when they don't lose their shirts! Publishing is a risky business, it's always a game of catch up.

A PSYOP'd general public does not want to hear about Y2K. In my opinion, the people who have not fallen prey to the PSYOP are either so deeply entrenched in another mind manipulation plan or they are extremely self reliant individuals who believe in taking responsbility for their own individual welfare. I have witnessed both types...but either way--they still don't buy the whitewash. This segment of the population is no doubt a "thorn in the side" for those wishing to sweep computer malfunctions under the rug due to liability issues and such.

It's funny how something can become branded "human error" but not "computer error"...let's see...if humans can make errors, and computers don't think for themeselves and rely on humans for their input, then I suppose computer errors are a possibility. But nooooo...human error sure sounds better doesn't it? It reminds us of our weakness and blaming a "human" or group is so much easier. And of course, we wouldn't want to hear the word "lawsuit"...such a messy word. The Y2K issue went into PSYOP mode quite some time ago. Perhaps it was necessary to keep the truth from people because after seeing what is unfolding lately (such as death threats to Peter De Jager for example), I am firmly convinced it was better for the public to be kept in the dark (no pun intended). The people who are maliously attacking other people who wanted to prepare for a disaster are the ones who scare me! But they often hide behind a vulgar name and fake email. I do, however, appreciate sincere and honest posts that reflect opposing views, because there is certainly a lot of misinformation out there.

For heavens sake, THIS IS A Y2K FORUM!!!!!! And Y2K, to me, means "year 2000" so I will follow this throughout the entire year. I want to hear all the reports and would like to draw my own conclusions. So, I want to say thank you to those who post reliable news and information.

I am not a polly or a doomer, just an information seeker. Like I said in another post...I must be a "polloomer". There now, at least I have a category too... "Damn Polloomers, they don't take a stand for anything...they just waste time getting information...." I think the best way for the Pollys and the Doomers to get along would be for them to have a common enemy--the Polloomer. Oh God! I'm a damn Polloomer...I better duck. =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 06, 2000.


I was in a Saturn Dealership in December and they mentioned the 2 week shutdown. This is no surprise. Sorry doomsquad.

-- nobody (nobody@nowhere.com), January 06, 2000.


Very germane and relevant post, Dee!!

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Post by nobody is probably not true. Why would a dealership tell a prospective customer that a factory was shutting down and signal to the customer that the car is not selling well? Unfortunately, this forum is being filled with totally fabricated stories. If hte post doesn't come from a regular, be suspicious of it.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

I was in a Saturn Dealership in December and they mentioned the 2 week shutdown. This is no surprise. Sorry doomsquad.

-- nobody (nobody@nowhere.com), January 06, 2000.

nobody, link please?

Nevermind...I think I can help you.

I think you and Carl are suggesting two different situations.

Firstly, Carl picked up on the following quote,

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - General Motors Corp.'s Saturn division, which entered the mid-size car market with its new L-Series last summer, has stopped production of the vehicle until Jan. 18 due to excess inventory and production problems, officials said on Wednesday.

There are reported problems with certain software that HAVE been mentioned already on this board. Think inventory control, invoicing, etc.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, ONE WAY or the OTHER. And when I'm reading a story in the mainstream media that says Saturn plants have shut down due to these kinds of problems it makes me wonder. We'll know better in a few weeks/months.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

nobody, I think you were advised regading this,

Saturn has also stopped production until Jan. 18 at its second plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., where it makes the S-Series small car, because of production preparations for a new sport utility vehicle to be launched next year.

and

`There's glitches in every launch,'' she told reporters at the Greater Los Angeles Auto Show, where Saturn unveiled its first concept vehicle, the CV1.

``It's going to take some time, just as it did 10 years ago,'' she added, referring to the launch of the first Saturn in 1989.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, look at that article. The lead paragraph which is supposed to be the most important paragraph in a news article mentions the has stopped production of the vehicle until Jan. 18 due to excess inventory and production problems but it gives no clear reason for the problem. It never resolves the situation or further investigates the problem. That is interesting.

Then, the entire balance of the article deals with the launch of a new line.

Bottom line, GM was very willing to talk about it's new product launch and the trouble associated with it but very unwilling to give details regarding the inventory and production problems at the other plant.

Just my .02"

Mike

=============================================

-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 06, 2000.


The one that keeps insisting that it be listed as Y2K related must be sort of out of it. Since when is big business or the media going to admit that it is Y2K related? All accidents should be listed here, big or small, because there is no truth in reports of causes. Some are,not Y2K related and others are, but as if with one voice all accidents we see in the news has a qualifier in it that it "IS NOT y2k RELATE," even before there is any investigation. That should be as plain as day that they will not admit it even if it is. Insurance momoney is the bottom line.

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Hmmmmmmmmm....I see that someone didn't like what I had to say and deleted my post, so I'll say again:

We must make our own deductions from the tidbits that we DO hear.

Ynott....I think our news is censored enough, don't you?

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 06, 2000.



Maybe, it was the same company I worked for a year ago. It was a heat treating and electoplating company. We couldn't get this tiny little part processed on time for one of Saturn's second tier suppliers. Shut 'em down for a whole day. Talk about some people who couldn't sit down for a while. Not Y2K related, of course. But, it does illustrate how one tiny little cog can stop a massive machine like Saturn.

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), January 07, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ