Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by HH56 On 2012/4/18 11:17:41

Have never seen the $29M cost for moving to Conner. Do you know where it came from?

Kimes edited book, "Let the Ride Decide" chapter by George Hamlin and Dwight Heinmuller--around pg 601

......." For calendar 1955, Studebaker-Packard would lose $29,705,093 after tax credit, which figure bears an uncomfortable proximity to the start-up tab for the Conner plant, the best example of the bad advice proffered Jim, Nance"..... Goes on to say the Packard division turned a profit overall

Understand the cost per car argument and it appears the supposed future efficiency was all that was being thought about at the time. Doesn't look like much more than passing consideration was given to any of the negatives or pitfalls. Advice by manufacturing personnel was move come hell or high water and we'll sort out the details. My point was they needed bodies quickly. Would it not have been possible to lease the Conner space or if too big, another. Buy or lease the stamping equipment and outfit that instead of uprooting everything. They had been hauling bodies across town for many years so surely they could have done it another few. Labor availability is a good point and no idea how that played into things. Again one of those things that is going to be debated till time ends. Isn't hindsight great.