Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 ...and I've got to say it's kinda funny that me (of all people) is the only one saying FCA should have been punished even harsher. ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Who FCA gets to choose (the NHSTA has to approve). I don't buy that it much heft behind it. Every single part of this ruling has a caveat. Heck even the part of the Grand Cherokee portion is only for trade-ins on FCA vehicles. If the NHTSA does not approve of any of the three FCA nominees, then the NHTSA gets to appoint the independent monitor with no further input from FCA. And you can ask Apple how much they enjoy having their FTC "independent monitor" around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 If the NHTSA does not approve of any of the three FCA nominees, then the NHTSA gets to appoint the independent monitor with no further input from FCA. And you can ask Apple how much they enjoy having their FTC "independent monitor" around. They wouldn't be able to hear me over their mountain of cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Being forced to buy back up to 500K vehicles with no guarantee of a replacement sale is pretty harsh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Being forced to buy back up to 500K 200K vehicles and having the costs deducted from a fine they were already required to pay with no guarantee of a replacement sale is pretty harsh! FTFY. It is most likely not going to cost them anything more than they were already required to pay. Maybe I'm wrong (and it certainly would not be the first time), but I am looking beyond the press releases and see a lot of hot air with this. It reeks to death of Sergio negotiation and not a "consent order". Just my opinion. Edited July 27, 2015 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 You read incorrectly. Only the 10% additional cost gets deducted from the fine - not the actual cost of the truck they bought back. If they buy back a $20K truck they pay $22K and $2K gets deducted from the penalty. They still have to pay $20K most of which they can get back when they auction it. Maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 It reeks to death of Sergio negotiation and not a "consent order". Just my opinion. Your back again to Sergio 'winning' this negotiated settlement despite the unprecedented level of government involvement in Chrysler's business practices? Did you read the consent order? The NHTSA gets to effectively write FCA's safety/recall policies (FCA is bound by the consent order to implement the recommendations of the NHTSA regarding FCA's new practices), and the first time the independent monitor finds FCA in violation of those practices, FCA has two weeks to fork over $3M. No. Questions. Asked. (2nd: $5M, 3rd: $7M). All of FCA's safety/recall practices have to be publicly available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Your back again to Sergio 'winning' this negotiated settlement despite the unprecedented level of government involvement in Chrysler's business practices? Did you read the consent order? The NHTSA gets to effectively write FCA's safety/recall policies (FCA is bound by the consent order to implement the recommendations of the NHTSA regarding FCA's new practices), and the first time the independent monitor finds FCA in violation of those practices, FCA has two weeks to fork over $3M. No. Questions. Asked. (2nd: $5M, 3rd: $7M). All of FCA's safety/recall practices have to be publicly available. Yes, I read them. FCA writes their best practices for recalls and submits to NHTSA. If the NHTSA thinks there should be any changes, they give their feedback and FCA resubmits. When NHTSA thinks all is fine and dandy, the best practices are final. It's not like they don't know what the NHTSA is looking for....heck they just had a big worskhop for manufacturers and the auto industry in April "retooling recalls" that went over the best practices they should be following for recalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) ...and I will take a step back. Yes, the fine is huge and the oversight is huge. But in relation to how it is being reported (much like the thread title), it does not match. It's not a $105 million fine. It's a $70 million fine (same as Honda) with another $20 million they should have been spending on recall related items now made mandatory and $15 million put in escrow to be paid towards fines if they don't follow the rules (which they get back if they do follow the rules). They are not buying back 500k trucks. I guess my perspective was looking at was was reported vs what the actual truth is and saw a much less venomous strike by the NHTSA. Edited July 27, 2015 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Over-sensationalized media headlines? Are there any other kind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Over-sensationalized media headlines? Are there any other kind? If it bleeds it leads! Though surprisingly, I'm not seeing this getting a whole lot of traction in the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 If it bleeds it leads! Though surprisingly, I'm not seeing this getting a whole lot of traction in the news. Not sure where you are from, but I'm guessing you haven't seen/heard too much of the local Detroit media, have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Not sure where you are from, but I'm guessing you haven't seen/heard too much of the local Detroit media, have you?I am familiar with Detroit media, I used to live in SE MI. Anything to do with the automakers is automatically the lead story there. Most everywhere else? Not so much. And that is not to say it hasn't been in the news, but not nearly as much as smaller recalls or the GM debacle. Recall fatigue? Edited July 27, 2015 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat501 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 This news was the 2nd lead story on the national NBC Nightly news tonight right behind the Fla boys lost at sea. And yes they proclaimed FCA may have to buy up to 500k trucks, right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Reading a few articles it seems that IF the consumer went and got their truck fixed they CAN'T get it bought back. BUT if they ignored all the notices they got they get rewarded by getting their truck bought back.Also haven't we hit the point where the DMV/SOS could just check if there was an open recall on your car and not renew your plates. Maybe other states do have that but not here in MI seems the easy way to fix all these cars with open recalls on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.