http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/7…
All Ford workers will get bonuses
Those who took buyouts also get one
After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
everyone would be getting a bonus.
The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
——————-
As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto industry.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <1173452007.993971.208…@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/7…
> All Ford workers will get bonuses
> Those who took buyouts also get one
> After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
> Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
> everyone would be getting a bonus.
> The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
> nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
> Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
> ——————-
> As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
> insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto industry.
It may be insanity but there is a reasoning behind it.
1) It is to pacify workers when the CEO still gets a huge (hundreds of
thousands to millions of dollars) bonus when the company is losing money.
(I don’t know if Ford’s CEO in particular did)
2) It is to try and keep remaining employees from jumping ship. Once
people see those they worked with get sacked, they start looking to
leave so often a bonus is paid out in some form or fashion to the
survivors. (although for a huge company like ford, it’s surprising)
On Mar 9, 10:46 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <1173452007.993971.208…@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
> >http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/7…
> > All Ford workers will get bonuses
> > Those who took buyouts also get one
> > After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
> > Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
> > everyone would be getting a bonus.
> > The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
> > nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
> > Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
> > ——————-
> > As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
> > insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto industry.
> It may be insanity but there is a reasoning behind it.
> 1) It is to pacify workers when the CEO still gets a huge (hundreds of
> thousands to millions of dollars) bonus when the company is losing money.
> (I don’t know if Ford’s CEO in particular did)
> 2) It is to try and keep remaining employees from jumping ship. Once
> people see those they worked with get sacked, they start looking to
> leave so often a bonus is paid out in some form or fashion to the
> survivors. (although for a huge company like ford, it’s surprising
Believe me, the remaining employeese won’t jump ship. We have a 1
state recession in Michigan right now with a 6.9% unemployment rate
(worst in the NATION). The job market sucks. The 6.9% is misleading
too, because thousands of people have left the state.
I’m leaving my current company who’s going out of business (MAJOR Tier
1 supplier… $4 billion business 2 year ago) for an 18% pay cut and
less benefits, and I’m the lucky one. But at least I’m leaving the
automotive industry, which is usually somewhat difficult to do in
Southeast Michigan.
When it’s good, there’s nothing better, but when it’s bad, there’s
nothing worse.
But hey, at least we reelected Gov. Granholm last year, and the best
she can come up with is to raise taxes on everybody!
In article <1173455743.653435.85…@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
> Believe me, the remaining employeese won’t jump ship. We have a 1
> state recession in Michigan right now with a 6.9% unemployment rate
> (worst in the NATION). The job market sucks. The 6.9% is misleading
> too, because thousands of people have left the state.
Must be reason number one then….
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/AUTO01/703…
Ford ups CEO bonus
Mulally gets extra $1M; total reward now at $6M
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday its board of directors approved a $6
million stock option bonus — $1 million more than was previously
promised — for new CEO Alan Mulally.
> But hey, at least we reelected Gov. Granholm last year, and the best
> she can come up with is to raise taxes on everybody!
Of course, revenue is down.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1173452007.993971.208600@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/703
> 090343
> All Ford workers will get bonuses
> Those who took buyouts also get one
> After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
> Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
> everyone would be getting a bonus.
> The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
> nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
> Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
> ——————-
> As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
> insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto
> industry.
Ford is near bankruptcy and they’re giving out bonuses?? You have to
wonder what is going on. I guess if you’re sure BK is gonna happen you
might as well just give the money away instead of letting the creditors get
it.
On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/7…
> All Ford workers will get bonuses
> Those who took buyouts also get one
> After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
> Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
> everyone would be getting a bonus.
> The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
> nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
> Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
> ——————-
> As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
> insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto industry.
I have to tell you, Larry, I worry about your state and the auto
industry as well. All we see are bad reports out of the auto
industry. They’re getting tromped by Toyota and they still don’t
change a thing they’re doing.
Michigan has been taking a beating for years and it keeps getting
worse. Yet amid all the employees – the people REALLY doing the work
– getting laid off, upper management compensation continues to
increase.
There’s a posting about an INCREASED stock option bonus for the new
CEO.
It’s ridiculous. The company is falling apart. The board members act
as though THEY own the company, not the stock holders. There SHOULD
be laws that make their actions criminal. How is that acting in the
best interest of the stock holders? Who in the heck ever start acting
like these outrageous compensation packages were normal? Especially
when a company is FAILING.
Yea, I have major fears for your state, the auto industry, and
especially the hard working people who are doing the REAL work in the
auto industry. I hope things get better, but thanks to the high level
of greed and mismanagement, I seriously doubt it’s going to happen
anytime soon. And that is very sad.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
On Mar 10, 8:13 am, "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_wheal…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yea, I have major fears for your state, the auto industry, and
> especially the hard working people who are doing the REAL work in the
> auto industry. I hope things get better, but thanks to the high level
> of greed and mismanagement, I seriously doubt it’s going to happen
> anytime soon. And that is very sad.
For good reason. The Big 2.5 have been hitching their wagons to
trucks and truck-based platforms for years. And when sales fall, they
pull poor imitations of past vehicles out as the "new thing."
Nobody buys them, of course. The new GT is magnificent. But at over
$100k, who’s going
to buy it? Hell, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn’t buy it.
Then the management and their apologists scream that it’s the union’s
fault. Of course it is – they design the cars, and choose the markets
to target, and what business strategy to pursue…
Ooops. They don’t do any of that. Does anyone REALLY believe that if
they turned those shops non-union that somehow the quality of the cars
would increase to Honda or Toyota level? Or the desirability? My
aunt wanted a Solstice. Then she drove one, and complained about how
cheap the whole thing was. If it had felt like it was quality-made,
she most certainly would have bought one. (I recommended a Miata or
even a used S2000, but she wanted a Pontiac…)
There’s only one American vehicle I’d buy if they suddenly had a half-
price sale – a minivan. But only because we need one anyway, now that
the family has outgrown the current station wagon. (Sidenote: even
if the Big 2.5 sold a full-sized station wagon, it wouldn’t be big
enough for all we want to do. It has to be a van or van-alike to
address our transportation needs in one vehicle.)
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:13 am, "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_wheal…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Yea, I have major fears for your state, the auto industry, and
>>especially the hard working people who are doing the REAL work in the
>>auto industry. I hope things get better, but thanks to the high level
>>of greed and mismanagement, I seriously doubt it’s going to happen
>>anytime soon. And that is very sad.
> For good reason. The Big 2.5 have been hitching their wagons to
> trucks and truck-based platforms for years. And when sales fall, they
> pull poor imitations of past vehicles out as the "new thing."
> Nobody buys them, of course. The new GT is magnificent. But at over
> $100k, who’s going
> to buy it? Hell, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn’t buy it.
> Then the management and their apologists scream that it’s the union’s
> fault. Of course it is – they design the cars, and choose the markets
> to target, and what business strategy to pursue…
> Ooops. They don’t do any of that. Does anyone REALLY believe that if
> they turned those shops non-union that somehow the quality of the cars
> would increase to Honda or Toyota level? Or the desirability? My
> aunt wanted a Solstice. Then she drove one, and complained about how
> cheap the whole thing was. If it had felt like it was quality-made,
> she most certainly would have bought one. (I recommended a Miata or
> even a used S2000, but she wanted a Pontiac…)
> There’s only one American vehicle I’d buy if they suddenly had a half-
> price sale – a minivan. But only because we need one anyway, now that
> the family has outgrown the current station wagon. (Sidenote: even
> if the Big 2.5 sold a full-sized station wagon, it wouldn’t be big
> enough for all we want to do. It has to be a van or van-alike to
> address our transportation needs in one vehicle.)
> E.P.
I’d probably buy a square-body Cherokee, except that they aren’t making
Make mine a 4.0 straight six – oops, they aren’t making
them anymore
that anymore either – and a manual transmission.
A pickup truck body based on the same chassis would be nice, too –
except they used to make that, but don’t anymore, either.
nate
–
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
On Mar 10, 10:19 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 8:13 am, "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_wheal…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Yea, I have major fears for your state, the auto industry, and
> >>especially the hard working people who are doing the REAL work in the
> >>auto industry. I hope things get better, but thanks to the high level
> >>of greed and mismanagement, I seriously doubt it’s going to happen
> >>anytime soon. And that is very sad.
> > For good reason. The Big 2.5 have been hitching their wagons to
> > trucks and truck-based platforms for years. And when sales fall, they
> > pull poor imitations of past vehicles out as the "new thing."
> > Nobody buys them, of course. The new GT is magnificent. But at over
> > $100k, who’s going
> > to buy it? Hell, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn’t buy it.
> > Then the management and their apologists scream that it’s the union’s
> > fault. Of course it is – they design the cars, and choose the markets
> > to target, and what business strategy to pursue…
> > Ooops. They don’t do any of that. Does anyone REALLY believe that if
> > they turned those shops non-union that somehow the quality of the cars
> > would increase to Honda or Toyota level? Or the desirability? My
> > aunt wanted a Solstice. Then she drove one, and complained about how
> > cheap the whole thing was. If it had felt like it was quality-made,
> > she most certainly would have bought one. (I recommended a Miata or
> > even a used S2000, but she wanted a Pontiac…)
> > There’s only one American vehicle I’d buy if they suddenly had a half-
> > price sale – a minivan. But only because we need one anyway, now that
> > the family has outgrown the current station wagon. (Sidenote: even
> > if the Big 2.5 sold a full-sized station wagon, it wouldn’t be big
> > enough for all we want to do. It has to be a van or van-alike to
> > address our transportation needs in one vehicle.)
> > E.P.
> I’d probably buy a square-body Cherokee, except that they aren’t making
Make mine a 4.0 straight six – oops, they aren’t making
> them anymore
> that anymore either – and a manual transmission.
> A pickup truck body based on the same chassis would be nice, too –
> except they used to make that, but don’t anymore, either.
The vehicle you describe doesn’t have enough interior volume. 7-place
seating, either. We had some friends who had this exact vehicle. The
six was strong, and I liked that. The ride was truck-like – not a big
fan. The rear seating sucked ass – no good for transporting the in-
laws. One of the uses to which my impending minivan will be put.
While I don’t like the idea of driving a minivan around, it’s hard to
beat the volume+use+ride comfort:price ratio.
I’ll still have the S6. ;)
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:19 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>On Mar 10, 8:13 am, "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_wheal…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Yea, I have major fears for your state, the auto industry, and
>>>>especially the hard working people who are doing the REAL work in the
>>>>auto industry. I hope things get better, but thanks to the high level
>>>>of greed and mismanagement, I seriously doubt it’s going to happen
>>>>anytime soon. And that is very sad.
>>>For good reason. The Big 2.5 have been hitching their wagons to
>>>trucks and truck-based platforms for years. And when sales fall, they
>>>pull poor imitations of past vehicles out as the "new thing."
>>>Nobody buys them, of course. The new GT is magnificent. But at over
>>>$100k, who’s going
>>>to buy it? Hell, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn’t buy it.
>>>Then the management and their apologists scream that it’s the union’s
>>>fault. Of course it is – they design the cars, and choose the markets
>>>to target, and what business strategy to pursue…
>>>Ooops. They don’t do any of that. Does anyone REALLY believe that if
>>>they turned those shops non-union that somehow the quality of the cars
>>>would increase to Honda or Toyota level? Or the desirability? My
>>>aunt wanted a Solstice. Then she drove one, and complained about how
>>>cheap the whole thing was. If it had felt like it was quality-made,
>>>she most certainly would have bought one. (I recommended a Miata or
>>>even a used S2000, but she wanted a Pontiac…)
>>>There’s only one American vehicle I’d buy if they suddenly had a half-
>>>price sale – a minivan. But only because we need one anyway, now that
>>>the family has outgrown the current station wagon. (Sidenote: even
>>>if the Big 2.5 sold a full-sized station wagon, it wouldn’t be big
>>>enough for all we want to do. It has to be a van or van-alike to
>>>address our transportation needs in one vehicle.)
>>>E.P.
>>I’d probably buy a square-body Cherokee, except that they aren’t making
Make mine a 4.0 straight six – oops, they aren’t making
>>them anymore
>>that anymore either – and a manual transmission.
>>A pickup truck body based on the same chassis would be nice, too –
>>except they used to make that, but don’t anymore, either.
> The vehicle you describe doesn’t have enough interior volume. 7-place
> seating, either. We had some friends who had this exact vehicle. The
> six was strong, and I liked that. The ride was truck-like – not a big
> fan. The rear seating sucked ass – no good for transporting the in-
> laws. One of the uses to which my impending minivan will be put.
> While I don’t like the idea of driving a minivan around, it’s hard to
> beat the volume+use+ride comfort:price ratio.
> I’ll still have the S6. ;)
> E.P.
Well… all I really want a truck for is to use as a TRUCK. Current
best possibility is an extended cab F-150, but that’s really bigger than
I need, and large enough it might be a PITA parking it in my small
driveway. All I’d ever use it for is hauling "stuff" so a Cherokee or
Comanche would be ideal.
Actually, what I’d really like is to have my great-grandfather’s old
Next choices would be a pre-73 Chevy or pre-"new Ram"
Willys-built J10 4WD, but that was sold long before I was of legal
driving age
Dodge or any Studebaker pickup, but all of the above are scarcer than
hen’s teeth around here. Apparently everyone in this area has
subscribed to the "newer = better" theory so trying to find a cheap old
beater is near impossible.
nate
–
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
On Mar 10, 10:52 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 10:19 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
> > The vehicle you describe doesn’t have enough interior volume. 7-place
> > seating, either. We had some friends who had this exact vehicle. The
> > six was strong, and I liked that. The ride was truck-like – not a big
> > fan. The rear seating sucked ass – no good for transporting the in-
> > laws. One of the uses to which my impending minivan will be put.
> > While I don’t like the idea of driving a minivan around, it’s hard to
> > beat the volume+use+ride comfort:price ratio.
> > I’ll still have the S6. ;)
> Well… all I really want a truck for is to use as a TRUCK. Current
> best possibility is an extended cab F-150, but that’s really bigger than
> I need, and large enough it might be a PITA parking it in my small
> driveway. All I’d ever use it for is hauling "stuff" so a Cherokee or
> Comanche would be ideal.
Yeah, if all I needed the vehicle for was transporting "stuff", a
truck with a canopy would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the vehicle also has to make comfortable all-day trips
to the grandparents’ homes, transport multiple kids + friends, be able
to transport gear and stuff out of the weather while potentially also
transporting kid(s), and still be able to get relatively decent fuel
mileage. I wish a manual diesel minivan existed. (Yes, a VW Vanagon
with a TDI conversion works, but who’s gonna do that work, LOL.)
It doesn’t have to tow, or transport a lot of very heavy stuff.
> Actually, what I’d really like is to have my great-grandfather’s old
Next choices would be a pre-73 Chevy or pre-"new Ram"
> Willys-built J10 4WD, but that was sold long before I was of legal
> driving age
> Dodge or any Studebaker pickup, but all of the above are scarcer than
> hen’s teeth around here. Apparently everyone in this area has
> subscribed to the "newer = better" theory so trying to find a cheap old
> beater is near impossible.
Out here in the west, finding an old beater truck is not tough.
Finding a decent classic like you’re talking about is. Pre-73 Chevs
and GMC full-size fleetsides are dime-a-dozen here. Of course, you
pay as much to transport them back East as you would purchasing them.
Studes? Good luck. Haven’t seen anything but car-show quality Stude
pickups for years.
Heck, an Audi club buddy of mine just picked up a ’76 GMC diesel pick-
up with 50k miles for $500. Damn thing looks and runs great. The
bastard. :)
E.P.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:52 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>On Mar 10, 10:19 am, Nate Nagel <njna…@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>The vehicle you describe doesn’t have enough interior volume. 7-place
>>>seating, either. We had some friends who had this exact vehicle. The
>>>six was strong, and I liked that. The ride was truck-like – not a big
>>>fan. The rear seating sucked ass – no good for transporting the in-
>>>laws. One of the uses to which my impending minivan will be put.
>>>While I don’t like the idea of driving a minivan around, it’s hard to
>>>beat the volume+use+ride comfort:price ratio.
>>>I’ll still have the S6. ;)
>>Well… all I really want a truck for is to use as a TRUCK. Current
>>best possibility is an extended cab F-150, but that’s really bigger than
>>I need, and large enough it might be a PITA parking it in my small
>>driveway. All I’d ever use it for is hauling "stuff" so a Cherokee or
>>Comanche would be ideal.
> Yeah, if all I needed the vehicle for was transporting "stuff", a
> truck with a canopy would be ideal.
> Unfortunately, the vehicle also has to make comfortable all-day trips
> to the grandparents’ homes, transport multiple kids + friends, be able
> to transport gear and stuff out of the weather while potentially also
> transporting kid(s), and still be able to get relatively decent fuel
> mileage. I wish a manual diesel minivan existed. (Yes, a VW Vanagon
> with a TDI conversion works, but who’s gonna do that work, LOL.)
> It doesn’t have to tow, or transport a lot of very heavy stuff.
>>Actually, what I’d really like is to have my great-grandfather’s old
Next choices would be a pre-73 Chevy or pre-"new Ram"
>>Willys-built J10 4WD, but that was sold long before I was of legal
>>driving age
>>Dodge or any Studebaker pickup, but all of the above are scarcer than
>>hen’s teeth around here. Apparently everyone in this area has
>>subscribed to the "newer = better" theory so trying to find a cheap old
>>beater is near impossible.
> Out here in the west, finding an old beater truck is not tough.
> Finding a decent classic like you’re talking about is. Pre-73 Chevs
> and GMC full-size fleetsides are dime-a-dozen here. Of course, you
> pay as much to transport them back East as you would purchasing them.
> Studes? Good luck. Haven’t seen anything but car-show quality Stude
> pickups for years.
> Heck, an Audi club buddy of mine just picked up a ’76 GMC diesel pick-
> up with 50k miles for $500. Damn thing looks and runs great. The
> bastard. :)
> E.P.
Y’all suck.
yeah, the Studebaker think is a long shot, it just so 
happens that that’s where a lot of my mechanical expertise is (I’ve
worked on Studes, Chevies, and some slant-six MoPars, not to mention a
long string of VW’s which is really not applicable to a discussion of
trucks) and you have to admit, that an old Stude C-cab towing a trailer
with my ’55 Stude coupe on it would look freakin’ cool
There is an old guy down the streets with a 60′s or early 70′s Ford
Ranger (as well as a ’51? I think? Ford coupe) and I’m tempted to knock
on his door and ask him if he wants to sell (since he’s got another
truck in the driveway) but a) I’m really not enamored of Fords and b) I
have a feeling that he’d name a price I couldn’t afford.
Yeah, cost is the issue with transporting – my budget is about $2K and
depending on location half to all of that could be eaten up by shipping
cost. I’d LOVE to have a pre-73 Chev, I just like the body style. My
dad has a ’73 which I also like, but if I’m buying for myself, I want
what I want. Plus from all accounts the trailing-arm suspension of the
earlier trucks is actually better than the leaf-spring suspension of the
73-up.
nate
–
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
In article <1173550257.081261.254…@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Nobody buys them, of course. The new GT is magnificent. But at over
> $100k, who’s going to buy it? Hell, if I had that kind of money, I
> wouldn’t buy it.
I feel that car could be made such that it would sell for $70K without
losing all that much beyond a hand built image. It could become a mass
produced car with good design and engineering for manufacturability
judging by what I saw the show stand.
> Then the management and their apologists scream that it’s the union’s
> fault. Of course it is – they design the cars, and choose the markets
> to target, and what business strategy to pursue…
The bad union contracts are a problem, but it comes into play when they
build cars people want. Since they refuse to build cars people want,
well it’s moot. Unless they develop cars assbackwards…
Let me rephrase part of that, they refuse to build cars people want in
sufficent volume. They get a car like the GT500 and they won’t build
them to meet demand.
> Ooops. They don’t do any of that. Does anyone REALLY believe that if
> they turned those shops non-union that somehow the quality of the cars
> would increase to Honda or Toyota level? Or the desirability? My
> aunt wanted a Solstice. Then she drove one, and complained about how
> cheap the whole thing was. If it had felt like it was quality-made,
> she most certainly would have bought one. (I recommended a Miata or
> even a used S2000, but she wanted a Pontiac…)
I figure when MBAs and finance people run the company they decide on a price
for the car first, then the margin they want, then the engineers have to
work with the union labor costs so it all comes out of the part cost to
make targets that were idiotic to start with. It makes sense to me that
they do it this ass-backwards way because then of course the immediate
place to cut/attack is the labor cost.
The real way is to come up with a product concept, maybe a prototype in
the process and find what people _will_ pay for it. Figure out what your
labor and development costs will be. Figure out what the parts cost will
be, and then build it if it makes sense.
On Mar 10, 8:20 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
[snip on-the-money analysis]
We *do* agree on car stuff.
E.P.
On Mar 10, 12:13 pm, "Chuck Whealton" <chuck_wheal…@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Mar 9, 9:53 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/BUSINESS01/7…
> > All Ford workers will get bonuses
> > Those who took buyouts also get one
> > After a $12.7-billion loss last year and widespread buyout programs,
> > Ford Motor Co. tried to boost morale Thursday by announcing that
> > everyone would be getting a bonus.
> > The bonuses will be $500 for UAW workers and $300 to $800 for
> > nonmanagement salaried workers, and most will be paid out next
> > Thursday. Salaried managers will receive slightly higher bonuses.
> > ——————-
> > As one who works for a tier 1 supplier in the Detroit area, this is
> > insanity. I have little hope for my state and for the auto industry.
> I have to tell you, Larry, I worry about your state and the auto
> industry as well. All we see are bad reports out of the auto
> industry. They’re getting tromped by Toyota and they still don’t
> change a thing they’re doing.
My company is going out of business at the end of June. We were a
MAJOR Tier 1 supplier. $4 billion interior maker. Capeting,
acoustics, plastics. The whole shebang. Between mismanagement in our
company, the poor culture inside the company, the down fall of the
manufacturers, and the rising cost of oil (raw materials for plastics
killed us), the combination was too much to handle.
I’m in IT and was able to find another job (my job was scheduled to
end March 31) after approx 2 months of looking. There ARE jobs out
there, but it all depends on how much of a pay cut you’re willing to
take. Mine was around 18%, but my new job is outside of automotive,
so maybe I’ll actually get a raise (haven’t had one in 3 years).
I believe in the next 5 or 6 years we’re going to see one automotive
company in Michigan. With this crazy governor that was just
reelected, whose solution to helping people in hard times is to raise
their taxes, and with yet another corrupt Detroit Mayor, it’s a
freakin’ joke.
In article <1173624112.222543.248…@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
> I believe in the next 5 or 6 years we’re going to see one automotive
> company in Michigan. With this crazy governor that was just
> reelected, whose solution to helping people in hard times is to raise
> their taxes, and with yet another corrupt Detroit Mayor, it’s a
> freakin’ joke.
In a generic sense… not specifically MI…
They raise the taxes, take in the money then skim off what they can get
away with and then give the rest as services or checks to the ‘needy’.
That’s socialism in practice. (not theory, just practice. Theory is
different and ignores that corrupt people are attracted to government
like moths to a flame) Far too many people buy into it thinking they’ll
get something out of it not realizing it just dooms the
state,city,whatever to a condition where businesses won’t locate there
(not to mention the survivors leaving along with people who can support
themselves) and will keep the people living there poor and dependent
on government.
Harvey, IL is a pretty good example of what business down turn plus
corruption results in after three decades.
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Larry Bud said in
rec.autos.driving:
> I believe in the next 5 or 6 years we’re going to see one automotive
> company in Michigan. With this crazy governor that was just
> reelected, whose solution to helping people in hard times is to raise
> their taxes, and with yet another corrupt Detroit Mayor, it’s a
> freakin’ joke.
What I see is Ford and GM becoming subsidiaries or brands under a
foreign manufacturer’s name – much like what happened with Chrysler when
Daimler-Benz bought them; though I understand that Daimler is trying to
unload Chrysler…..
–
D river
R eturns
O n
F oot
In article <MPG.205e25c6583d939f98a…@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, necromancer wrote:
> Oh, wait. We are talking about Ford. Why am I using the words
> "intelligently run company," in a paragraph discussing Ford??
If ford was an intelligently run company I’d own a GT500 or Ford GT right
now. But they have failed to bring their best products to market in any
meaningful way. They exist as token collectables. At worst, if Ford had
kept making the GT as a super car, eventually there would be used ones
people like me could afford. (and probably less costly to keep running
than it’s used counterparts from ferrari and porsche) If they had thought
about it as a production car they could have something to compete with
the corvette and viper. The GT500 is just a self induced marketing
clusterf**k that has allowed dealers to up prices by 50% to about 20K over
sticker. Making dealers a couple very profitable sales each while hurting
ford and turning loyalists away.
> I’ll just have to wait untill I retire with social security and
> mediscare long since bankrupt, defaulted and gone to answer that
> question….
I wish I could stop sending money down that hole. Putting the money in my
mattress is better than social security will be for me. Last time I
calculated from that notice what I would have to live to just to break
even on a stick cash in the mattress basis I would need to be over 90 or
close to it. And that’s provided they don’t jack up collections.
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> I know ford has cars they sell overseas that could really help them here
> in the USA. If were in charge I would have engineering teams tooling
> those products up here in the USA with all the appropiate changes.
Really. I wouldn’t mind having one of those "Sportka," cars for an
around town car….
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLdcGSRHaaY
–
Aunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding
of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>,"
and what a "thread," is:
"Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile
me TWICE in the same thread and you expect
people to take you seriously???"
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9