Flint immediately sees a conflict between the automakers over who would be top dog. He sees no 'merger of equals' here any more than the DaimlerChrysler union was and, worse for GM, the world would not expect Ghosn to take a back seat. GM would be run by Ghosn and Nissan/Renault, not Detroit.
He also doesn't see the money savings in the merger, which analysts state is the long-term goal. Which manufacturing plants, for example, would be closed? In France? Detroit? Germany? And how would the brands be dealt with? Rebadge Tennessee-built Nissans as Chevys? Close the French design staff and have GM's designers in Germany develop new Opels? Even before these questions are answered, the involved automakers would need to deal with GM's union contracts and legacy costs that make the original Nissan/Renault merger look like a cakewalk.
Flint concludes his thoughts on Toyota Motor Co., which many merger advocates point to support their idea. The world's second largest automaker continues its relentless march towards Number One and no automaker has come close to stopping it, especially not any domestic ones. Would a Nissan/Renault/GM company be able to even slow down the Japanese juggernaut? Flint points out that it took years for Nissan/Renault and DaimlerChrysler to begin profiting from their mergers, and there are carcasses aplenty of other former mergers (e.g., GM/Fiat; Studebaker/Packard, etc.) littering the ground of history. By the time Global Motors would resolve its issues, Toyota could be unassailable.
Your thoughts on Flint's thoughts?
Kerkorian: Merge GM with Nissan/Renault?
Toyota buys GM and other improbables
General Motors, more cuts now, says Kerkorian's advisor
Armchair management: what would you do to solve GM's problems?