Re: Why no Packard in a "Packard"?

Posted by Mahoning63 On 2012/4/22 19:47:19

Well done Steve, and good point Ross.

A couple questions come to mind regarding the labor force. Who employed the former Briggs body assembly people in 1954? Chrysler? What about 1955-1956? Still Chrysler or now Packard? Wonder if this was an issue. For example, there might have been pay dispartities between Chrysler and Packard. A plant's grapevine typically grows wild so the differences would have been known to all.

Found a little more info on the Conner moving expenses. Ward says on pg 123 that the first year lease and moving expenses added to $3M.