UAW gets theirs...

[Van]

What exactly is overhead? Well, I guess it's pretty much anything, if you're moving sale

Very well done.

[Cuda]

if you have fewer people trying to sell your product, you're NOT going to sell more product.

They're resigned to the fact that they're not going to sell more product. The issue then becomes the cost of selling product versus profitability. If the ratio of profit to cost increases as a result of selling less product (and conversely decreases by selling more), it makes economic sense to close stores. Happens in retail all the time.

what the fuck would you know about it? you've never been in the private sector. all you've ever done is work for Auntie Sam.

you're right that the idea is not to sell more cars, but to raise prices- and that's not going to help them either because their prices are already too high. The dealers have to sell the econoshitboxes at a loss or else they don't sell at all. That's not going to change- at least not for the better.


Oh, but it happens in retail all the time, eh? Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy

[Rack Fu]

There's no fukking way to say that labor has to be some predetermined % of cost. It depends on the complexity of the product. Cars are fairly complex and take a fair bit of labor to assemble. Same goes for planes. No fukking clue what the actual % is, but, to say it needs to be under 25 or any other number for manufacturing in general is almost as stupid as saying that labor is not overhead.

Labor is most assuredly not a portion of overhead, you ignorant fuckwit. Furthermore, the complexity of the product has nothing whatsoever to do with the % of labor that any given product costs, be it a squadron of F-22's or a bag of hammers. And yes, if the labor to produce anything exceeds a certain threshold of the total cost, let's call it 30%, there's absolutely no way to make a profit.

Alright then, smartass. What exactly is overhead? Well, I guess it's pretty much anything, if you're moving sale, but, what is it with regards to expenses. And the complexity of the product sure the fukk does have everything to do with the % of labor costs. If you manufacture 10-32 x 3/4" stainless steel screws, your labor costs are pretty damn low. Your material costs are high.

Overhead are those costs that are not directly traceable to a product. Pretty much every cost a manufacturing company carries except direct labor and direct materials is considered overhead.

[War Wagon]

What exactly is overhead?

Many things... like rent, utilities, depreciation, insurance, shop expense, etc. One thing it most decidedly is not, is labor.

[War Wagon]

Overhead are those costs that are not directly traceable to a product. Pretty much every cost a manufacturing company carries except direct labor and direct materials is considered overhead.

Pretty much, with two small exceptions. Outside labor and set-up labor, which are usually never more than about 5% of the total cost of the product.

[Rack Fu]

Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy

That had fuck all to do with the quality or experience of their salespeople, dipshit. CC had been getting the stuffing beat out of it for years by Best Buy and Walmart and had been rendered insignificant. Their death march took a few years to complete.

[Smackie Chan]

what the fuck would you know about it? you've never been in the private sector. all you've ever done is work for Auntie Sam.

You've repeatedly shown yourself over the years to be an utterly retarded dipshit, but now you're dropping the bar to an all-time low. What the fuck does my employer have to do with the issue being discussed? Are you implying that only those who work in the private sector are privy to the secret machinations of economics? You make KN appear to be a Rhodes scholar by comparison.

you're right that the idea is not to sell more cars, but to raise prices- and that's not going to help them either because their prices are already too high. The dealers have to sell the econoshitboxes at a loss or else they don't sell at all. That's not going to change- at least not for the better.

Who said anything about raising prices? The purpose of closing stores or dealerships is to reduce the cost of selling goods while keeping prices attractive to consumers and profitable to manufacturers and sellers. Sure, they could potentially sell more units by keeping dealerships open or even opening more, but the cost to do so would be prohibitive and would pull down profits. You do realize that increased unit sales doesn't necessarily translate to greater bottom-line profit, don't you? And that increased unit price doesn't necessarily mean the company makes more money?

Oh, but it happens in retail all the time, eh?

Yes, it does. Retail chains routinely close stores during tough economic times, and open more when people are spending. Doesn't mean that the companies go out of business (though some do), but that a balance has to be maintained between supply and demand. As S&D fluctuates, so do the number of retail outlets. This is basic stuff, coods, though I'm not shocked that you fail to get it.

Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy

You're arguing against points I never made. Circuit City is a great example of a company that couldn't keep up with the competition. When did I ever suggest that firing your best employees was sound business practice? The auto industry may ultimately fall prey to the same forces that doomed CC, but in the meantime, it's trying to take steps that will ensure it can survive until what will hopefully be better business strategies take hold and the economy turns around. The formula RJ laid out suggests that rather than firing the employees (dealerships) that are performing, they're cutting loose the dead wood, which makes economic (not political) sense.

Retailers closing stores is akin to sending in the punter on 4th down. Sure, it's gonna be tougher to put points on the board in the short term when you give the ball to the other team. But it minimizes your chances of digging yourself into a deeper hole and allows your offense to regroup and come up with better long-term strategies while the defense is trying to keep things from getting worse, allowing the team as a whole to weather the storm and live to fight another day.

I know I overloaded that last bit with way too many cliches, but I'm trying to make it simple for you to understand, cooter. I'm helpful like that.

[War Wagon]

Labor might not be considered overhead, but it's still an operating cost and is built into the price structure of any product or service so you're making a distinction without any practical difference.

For struggling companies that have multiple mfg. facilities located around the country or the world, overhead makes all the difference in deciding which plants to close and which plants stay open, even if they have identical labor costs.

[Cuda]

you're right that the idea is not to sell more cars, but to raise prices- and that's not going to help them either because their prices are already too high. The dealers have to sell the econoshitboxes at a loss or else they don't sell at all. That's not going to change- at least not for the better.

Who said anything about raising prices? The purpose of closing stores or dealerships is to reduce the cost of selling goods while keeping prices attractive to consumers and profitable to manufacturers and sellers. Sure, they could potentially sell more units by keeping dealerships open or even opening more, but the cost to do so would be prohibitive and would pull down profits. You do realize that increased unit sales doesn't necessarily translate to greater bottom-line profit, don't you? And that increased unit price doesn't necessarily mean the company makes more money?

Stonie, the manufacturers don't fucking OWN the dealerships. They don't pay any of their expenses. Closing them doesn't do a fucking thing to reduce the cost of selling cars. The manufacturers sell their cars to THE DEALERS. They don't sell a fucking thing directly to the consumer. They make their profits from THE DEALERS, not from the public. Eliminating dealerships doesn't save the manufacturers a fucking dime. In the best case scenario, fewer dealers means less competition for buyers and increased sales prices. The flaw in that theory is the fact that higher prices will only ensure fewer sales- and lower profits.

Oh, but it happens in retail all the time, eh?

Yes, it does. Retail chains routinely close stores during tough economic times, and open more when people are spending. Doesn't mean that the companies go out of business (though some do), but that a balance has to be maintained between supply and demand. As S&D fluctuates, so do the number of retail outlets. This is basic stuff, coods, though I'm not shocked that you fail to get it.

OK, name three. On second thought, don't bother- GM & Chrysler aren't in the fucking retail business and they don't own their stores.

Circuit City is a great example of that. Sometime in 2007, the geniuses in charge decided they were paying their best salespeople too much in commissions- so they fired them. A year later, they had to liquidate and go out of business because the remaning salespeople weren't selling enough stuff. Very successful strategy

You're arguing against points I never made. Circuit City is a great example of a company that couldn't keep up with the competition. When did I ever suggest that firing your best employees was sound business practice? The auto industry may ultimately fall prey to the same forces that doomed CC, but in the meantime, it's trying to take steps that will ensure it can survive until what will hopefully be better business strategies take hold and the economy turns around.

You're totally missing the real point: eliminating sales people will not result in increased sales- which, by the way is the exact reason we're being given for why the number of car dealerships need to be reduced; because, supposedly, that's the only way to increase sales!

I know I overloaded that last bit with way too many cliches, but I'm trying to make it simple for you to understand, cooter. I'm helpful like that.

Well, you certainly overloaded it with bullshit, which only points out that you have no better understanding of business & commerce than War Wagon

[Cuda]

Labor might not be considered overhead, but it's still an operating cost and is built into the price structure of any product or service so you're making a distinction without any practical difference.

For struggling companies that have multiple mfg. facilities located around the country or the world, overhead makes all the difference in deciding which plants to close and which plants stay open, even if they have identical labor costs.

They're not closing plants right now you goddam moron, they're closing dealerships

[Left Seater]

Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.

The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.

that's why management wanted the strike.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.

Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.

Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.

You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.

I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.

[War Wagon]

They're not closing plants right now you goddam moron, they're closing dealerships

.

Coods, you really are clueless. Guess I gave you too much credit for having some idea of what the fuck you were talking about, which it's quite obvious, you don't.

They are closing plants, many of which will be dark before any of the precious dealerships you speak of.

So, which failed dealership are you getting ready to get dumped from?

Coods, the totally ignorant car salesman... it all makes perfect sense now.

Chin up, lil' feller. Maybe you can go sell aluminum siding.

[War Wagon]

It doesn't make any difference, dolt. It's all opex. The fact that it rolls up to a different GL account doesn't effect the bottom line.

Overhead costs don't make any difference to the bottom line?

Oh, ok...

I realize you like to think you're an expert on everything but much like Coods, you're just blowing smoke on this subject.

[Dr_Phibes]

You're totally missing the real point: eliminating sales people will not result in increased sales- which, by the way is the exact reason we're being given for why the number of car dealerships need to be reduced; because, supposedly, that's the only way to increase sales!

No, he's got it bang on. GM is in competition with themselves - there's a glut of dealerships all within ten blocks of each other. Increased sales and profitability aren't married at the hip - maximised profit comes from shortage, that's just basic economics, you should know this :?

[Diego in Seattle]

Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.

The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.

Again, how far behind is the 787 program? Or were you intentionally leaving that out of your answer?

that's why management wanted the strike.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.

Where the fuck did I say that Boeing wanted to give it's workers more? Try mixing in some reading comprehension skills.

I'll spell it out for you since you're a pauper when it comes to buying a clue. Again, management made promises (through contracts) they couldn't keep (& never should have made in the first place). These contracts had penalties for late deliveries. Give you one guess what situation would absolve Boeing of paying those fines.

I'm so glad you're up on all the information regarding aerospace manufacturing. X infinity.

Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.

Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.

So sorry to burst your bubble, but this is where most of the delays came from. They've said so themselves.

You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.

I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.

[/quote]

You might know what the insides of a crop duster, but I highly doubt you know anything about manufacturing of commerical jets. Your statements of ignorance prove that.

[indyfrisco]

ltr: Victim #12, DiS

[Cuda]

- maximised profit comes from shortage, that's just basic economics, you should know this :?

Finally, the commie gets a rack.

Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production. Well, with the government now running those companies and making decisions based on politics, there will inevitably be shortages (and huge profits) on those few models that people actually want to buy.

Count on huge surpluses of the econoshitboxes, though.

too bad they're so small, or the sainted homeless could live in them- subsidized by the taxpayers, of course

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The formula that was used to punk the immediate 1,100 dealers was looking at dealer sales, profitability, Customer Service Scores (CSI-which fucking SUCKED, im sure) and working capital (Cash in the bank).

You equate working capital to "cash in the bank"?

Why do you hate Accounting 101 so much? (current assets - current liabilities) Cash is a small part this equation.

[Smackie Chan]

the manufacturers don't fucking OWN the dealerships. They don't pay any of their expenses. Closing them doesn't do a fucking thing to reduce the cost of selling cars. The manufacturers sell their cars to THE DEALERS. They don't sell a fucking thing directly to the consumer. They make their profits from THE DEALERS, not from the public. Eliminating dealerships doesn't save the manufacturers a fucking dime.

The more you post, the more you show yourself to be an imbecile.

How much does having too many dealers cost Detroit's automakers?

According to the best publicly available estimate, about $436 per vehicle, or $3.9 billion, according to CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore.

CNW has measured the cost through confidential research annually since 2002. The $436 figure represents the average of what General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler Group spend above the industry average.

The estimate, which is likely to be controversial, includes the cost of delivering vehicles to stores, as well as a variety of administrative expenses that automakers incur to support their dealers.

Those services include marketing assistance, parts and service support, training, auditing and other behind-the-scenes activities, such as communications about financing and new products. Many automakers maintain a fleet of salaried workers who provide this support and regularly visit dealerships.

But industry experts say GM, Ford and Chrysler need to streamline their dealership network. Having to provide all those services to thousands of unnecessary dealerships is a huge cost disadvantage for Detroit's automakers.

While the estimates may be subject to debate, the fact that the automakers incur costs as a result of having to support the dealerships is not. Even the dealerships admit this:

"It costs them money to deal with us," said Mike Foley, who owns Foley Chrysler-Jeep outside Pittsburgh.

What I find unfathomable is this:

Detroit's automakers all criticized the estimate as excessively high.

"There's probably some cost involved in having excess capacity," said Cisco Codina, Ford's group vice president for sales, marketing and service. He said CNW's number was too high, though he could not provide one of his own.

"I have not put a pencil to it," he said.

Probably?!? How the fuck don't they know what's contributing to their costs? Gee, tough for me to understand why the industry is floundering when they don't "put a pencil to it" and be able to provide numbers of their own. If they want to be taken seriously when they criticize the estimates for being excessively high, they should easily be able to refute them by providing their own calculations, which sound business practice would dictate is done as a matter of routine.

And btw, coods, yes, I am a gov't lifer, and while this doesn't make me Deming or anything, I do have a degree in Business Mgmt, which isn't required to conclude that you're a moron.

http://www.freep.com/article/20070617/B ... rts+debate

[Derron]

Everyone flailing around much ?

Labor & Materials - Non - owned equipment are direct job costs.

Overhead is everything else. Overhead is there every day if you do not open the doors or run the production line.

Labor & Materials will not be there if you do not operate that day.

The reason for cost control on labor is because it tends to be a larger portion of total job expenses. Varies with the business. Benefits tend to go to the overhead line, because they tend to be recurring regular costs, regardless of production. If your production efficiency drops, then your labor expense goes up at a faster rate.

If your overhead, debts service, infrastructure expense creeps up there, that will greatly gross margin, and ultimately net profit. Overhead is always generally more than labor expense. Overhead management is critical to the business success.

And the overhead, you know all the small business's that all say I can sell this product, widget, service, blow job for less because I have no overhead.

And the one thing all you Harvard MBA's seem to be missing is that even with less stealerships out there, there may or may not be fewer cars sold. But the MARGINS on the ones sold will be much greater, allowing the individual stealerships to have better gross margins, and ultimately net profits. Prices are not coming down any time soon...but the dealer margins will go up.

[indyfrisco]

Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.

Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?

So not sure where you are getting your information but I know where I get mine on the subject. Oh yes...production is being cut for damn sure.

[Mikey]

Overhead is always generally more than labor expense.

Not in the "services" industry.

Sin,
MA


"Always generally"?...LOL...is that an oxymoron or just an extremetly clever way to hedge a statement?

[Left Seater]

You might know what the insides of a crop duster, but I highly doubt you know anything about manufacturing of commerical jets. Your statements of ignorance prove that.

We have to know all about it so when the union hacks on the production line or the A&P union hacks that maintain them make a mistake it doesn't kill someone. Thankfully our company employes a wonderful A&P guy who is an employee and not a union hack.

As for the crop duster quote that is hardly a jab. I would love to fly one of those around for fun. They are the sports cars to the RVs or Buses that make up most of the flying these days.

Again, how far behind is the 787 program? Or were you intentionally leaving that out of your answer?

The 787 is years behind schedule. But as I pointed out before, it would be in the air today but for the union strike. It still would have been behind schedule, but today May 18th it would be in the air. Fact is most new airplanes are behind their target delivery dates and first flight dates. That is why discounts are offered for the early delivery positions. We just saw it happen with that hiddeous A380, and it will happen with the A350 also.

[Cuda]

Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.

Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?

So not sure where you are getting your information but I know where I get mine on the subject. Oh yes...production is being cut for damn sure.

why would GM keep buying from you when most of their production is shifting to their factories in China?

[indyfrisco]

Trouble is, neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.

Umm...my company has a little to do with the automotive industry. Actually, about 150 million little things to do with it yearly. Well, it used to. GM, Ford and Chrysler all use our products. GM and Chrysler have cut back....WAY back on their purchases from us. Now, I know car companies switch up thier product year in and year out, but I imagine all cars still have braking systems, no?

So not sure where you are getting your information but I know where I get mine on the subject. Oh yes...production is being cut for damn sure.

why would GM keep buying from you when most of their production is shifting to their factories in China?

I don't know. Maybe because we have factories in China too? We also have factories in Thailand, Poland, Ireland, and Mexico as well as some in the good ole US of A. Additionally, we know when we win or lose a bid for product. When there is no offer for a product, we can't bid on it. They aren't dropping us as a supplier, they just aren't ordering as much which we know they plan on slowing production.

[Cuda]

you're pretty slow on the uptake, indy

[War Wagon]

neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.

What fucking planet do you live on?

They've been idling assembly lines for the past 6 months you ignoramus, even at the plants which produce the more popular and better selling models. Like the Fairfax plant in KC that makes the Malibu. They were shut down for 6 weeks. And the Claycomo Ford plant, which makes the F-150, the best selling truck in America, was also shut down for an extended period of time.

[Smackie Chan]

This thread isn't going well for cuda Nashville.

/s/

MA

[Cuda]

neither Chrysler nor GM are even considering cutting their production.

What fucking planet do you live on?

They've been idling assembly lines for the past 6 months .

How do you spell Meh-he-co?

What does C-H-I-N-A spell?

Those assembly plants are building in new production capacity (you'd probably call it "overhead")

Chump. Get used to hearing it. Pretty soon, Onogga will feel comfortable enough saying in public what he whispers in private.

[War Wagon]

Oh please Coods, you're just talking out your ass again with conspiracy theories.

Get this thru your thick skull.

Every last manufacturer has been trying to cut inventory for at least the past 6 months, and not just the automotive companies.

The smarter ones started idling production capacity over a year ago. Unfortunately, there weren't too many of those who could see this downturn coming. So they're stuck sitting on gazzillions of dollars of products that just. aren't. selling.

So now they're having fire sales, selling product at little more than cost or scrap value, just trying to generate some cash flow.

[Tom In VA]

U.S. Automakers planning to shift more production to China and continuing to shift production to Mexico is not a conspiracy theory.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/12/repo ... consumers/


Don't be so down on conspiracy. It's a fact of life. Anytime people get together to plan something they are, in fact, conspiring.

[War Wagon]

Great article, Tom.

Of course, it means next to nothing, but this was interesting nonetheless.

While many would expect the U.S. to be the big loser here, virtually all of the related production loss occurs in Canada.

I'm sure that has Marty plenty steamed and by extension, his sycophant Coods

[Felix]

the rights of workers to bargain collectively.

And the rights of secured creditors to get paid before unsecured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings?

Bueller? Anyone?

The most successful parasites don't kill their hosts.

who held the majority of interest in Chrysler, be it secured or unsecured? simple answer-the Union did...they have no intention of killing Chrysler off, because if they do, there goes their retirement benefits, etc.

Chrysler isn't the type of company you can simply sell off the good and dump the bad

[Felix]

who held the majority of interest in Chrysler, be it secured or unsecured?

And that has what, exactly, to do with bankruptcy law? What part of secured creditors get paid before unsecured creditors are you struggling to comprehend?

If they'd filed Chapter 7, I'd agree with you that the secured debtors should be payed first, but this was a chapter 11 reorganization so I think Obama was asking everyone (UAW included) to make some serious concessions in order for Chrysler to complete the merger with Fiat and once again become a viable automaker

again, I'd be interested to know if any of the hedge fund companies that balked at the request to take a reduced payment for their investment dollars were holding credit default swaps from AIG

[Felix]

If they get paid in full and first as they are supposed to in bankruptcy proceedings, then they don't have to cash in on that taxpayer funded default swap now, do they?

but they weren't going to get paid in full no matter how it played out and they knew it....

just wondering why it was four of the SMALLEST hedge fund investors in Chrysler that killed the original deal and forced the bankruptcy?

any thoughts on that?

[Moving Sale]

On the other hand this could be a future road map for all unions.

Word.

Sin,
Police/Correctional Officers Unions

[BSmack]

just wondering why it was four of the SMALLEST hedge fund investors in Chrysler that killed the original deal and forced the bankruptcy?

any thoughts on that?

They were being offered 30 cents on the dollar. I'd tell them to shove it up their ass, too.

Who wouldn't?

And now how much are they getting?

[smackaholic]

We'll find out in bankruptcy court, won't we.

A system exists to handle these occurances. Just because BO thinks he's above that system, doesn't mean that it goes away.

[Cuda]

just wondering why it was four of the SMALLEST hedge fund investors in Chrysler that killed the original deal and forced the bankruptcy?

any thoughts on that?

They were being offered 30 cents on the dollar. I'd tell them to shove it up their ass, too.

Who wouldn't?

And now how much are they getting?

30 cents on the dollar.

Pay attention, dipshit.

[Diego in Seattle]

Please tell everyone how long the strike was, and how far the plane is behind schedule.

The strike was 52 or 54 days, something like that. But for each day that they crybabies were out pushed the first flight back three days. So the strike cost Boeing something like 156 or 160 days.

that's why management wanted the strike.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this board. Yep Mgmt wanted the workers to strike. Yeah, Boeing wanted 15% raises for every worker, health care costs to employees capped at 2005 levels, and a bonus to the whiners just for signing a contract and coming back to work.

Additionally, the delays with suppliers were huge...many were caused by non-union suppliers. They got what they paid for.

Right, anything non-union supplied is to be blamed for the delay.

You might know how to fly a plane, but you don't know shit about manufacturing one.

I have forgotten more than 10 times what you will ever know about manufacturing one. Get back to me when you have memorized the complete fuel system, wiring diagrams, complete hyd system, etc for a type rating.

Dumbass says what?