A huge difference is no UAW. A second difference is few retirees in the US. Toyota's profits would look a lot different if these factors were included. Chrysler cannot wish away either of these, regardless of its owners, or CEO's.
As of 2003, GM had 339,000 retirees and Toyota had 65.
Those numbers will change as retirees die, the auto companies downsize retiree benefits and Toyota’s workforce ages and retires. ~But first the damage will get more severe.
The difference is simply that GM is an American company with a long presence and Toyota is a newcomer with fewer liabilities.
“Chrysler cannot wish away either of these, regardless of its owners, or CEO’s.”
They can. They can cut pensions if a certain financial loss threshold is reached. That is in the contract from the past.
Which brings up an important point. The auto industry (US) has operated much like the US government - make promises that they cannot possibly afford/tie up future funds and obligations. Why has the US auto industry made such promises - the union. The unions have outlived their useful and constructive roll by about 60 years. When unions were about actual worker safety/working conditions - they were quite instrumental in bringing up standards in US manufacturing. But we taxpayers now fund an agency of the federal government to take care of that (OSHA). Now, the unions are about getting all the pay and benefits they can squeeze out of the employers - even if that means cutting their own throat. Here is what it boils down to - Toyota, Nissan, and other overseas companies building plants in the US choose "right to work" states for a reason. And while the Japanese plants have operated under a "no layoffs" plan their entire time in the US (they do also hire temporary workers - as does other companies like Remington Arms), they have kept the promises and continue to make huge profits. While the big 2 have had many layoffs. The benefits and pay, though maybe not quite as plumb/golden as the big 3, are quite good at the Japanese factories. As I posted at a previous time on the same subject - IF the big 3 were to decide to work together to bust the Union, they could. If all three decide that they are going to set the conditions of work, the pay scale, the benefits packages - all based upon what they can actually afford - maybe (God forbid) tie in benefits and bonuses with actual profits and quality.... IF the Union says no, then shut them down. At this point, it is difficult to imagine that it would hurt the already bleeding ledger. IF GM/Ford/Chrysler are to stay in business, they must be run like a business. That means operating in a manner that makes a profit. They cannot continue in the red forever. if the union decides to play hardball, then they should be willing to face layoffs or even complete loss of jobs. And it may come to this - how much does it cost to build and open an auto manufacturing plant in a right-to-work state? A billion dollars? How much is GM or the other makers bleeding due to inane benefits and union demands? I realize that training a whole new workforce would also be extremely expensive- but the current model is NOT WORKING. Without change, and SOON, the only US made cars will be by foreign companies (like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, etc.)