By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It is the one barometer of an auto companies health that everyone can understand.
Car companies whose market share is climbing are percieved differently than car companies whose share is stagnant or declining.
Next, the more cars you have in circulation,the better off you are.
The UAW likes it,because it keeps the factories open and producing.
Dealers like it because it means more business,esp parts and service(which is where virtually all the dealer profit is these days anyway)
Finally, the suits like it because they can point to increasing sales units. At the end of the day, the barometer in sales is how many more than how much.
If management is so conerned about market share that they are willing to sacrifice profits, only an idiot will be a shareholder, and I may have to develop as much contempt for mgmt as I have for the union...omigod...
rockylee...rockylee...rockylee...we may have something in common after all... :mad:
I thought that day would be impossible !!!!!!
-Rocky
But, when you have a few hundred thousand workers or three CEOs (one per Big 3), dumping a CEO rarely causes much of a monetary savings, whereas dumping 50,000 unneeded line workers amounts to a great savings, esp over a period of time...
If my math is right, releasing 50,000 workers, who cost at least $50K per year (salary, benefits, retirement, etc) saves (does my calculator have enough zeros?) $2.5 billion per year, $25 billion over 10 years...
Even an overpaid CEO at $50-100 million (which they do not deserve) is gone in an instant, and the $50-100 mil is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions...
The CEOs/Owners who come to mind that were worth every penny
they were paid are Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch, Warren Buffet, Lee Iaccoca (K-Car and minivan), to name a few...some were the true Capitalists and some were simply CEOs that knew their business and either grew their company to be a powerhouse (GE) or brought it back from the brink of disaster (Chrysler)...
But paying a CEO many, many millions simply to leave for doing a poor job (Nasser at Ford, for example) is just as obscene to me as watching 10 union workers stand around while one digs the hole and the others "supervise"...
-rockylee
At the same time, why do union members expect better benefits and wages than other laborers doing comparable work? Better compensation in many cases than many professions which require advanced degrees?
In both cases, it is because they can, they have been able to get these things, and they will try to increse their gains if at all possible or not. It has nothing to do with a fair wage. It's more like killing the goose who lays the golden eggs. The pendulum slowly swings...
The UAW workers actually believe that all of the other comparable jobs out there are underpaid and need to be brought up to UAW standards. They also believe that they are paving the way for other workers to get more pay and benefits across the board. And they think they deserve all of the company's profits but none of the company's losses because it's not their fault.
I think the UAW leadership understand the situation, but I doubt that the UAW members want to accept it.
I smell a "market correction" and it's long overdue.
Ford etc:
Got my latest Motor Trend yesterday. Has their summary rundown of SUVs and trucks. Each gets a para and some specs and a one-liner to sum up.
For Lincoln mkx and mlt, the sum up was:
"Used to be a proud luxo brand. Now just a Ford trim level. Tragic."
And for Mercury Mariner/Mountaineer:
"For female buyers only. Apparently."
Rocky: I read some years ago, that between the lineworker and the CEO in Toyota, there were 7 layers of employees, and in GM there were 11 layers of bureaucracy...so, one must ask, what does GM need four more layers of bureaucrats (probably thousands of unneeded employees) to do that Toyota can do with so many less???...that, to me, is incompetent managament, obviously, a leftover from the good old days when GM was a cash cow that could do no wrong...
How many offices in the Ford Glass House are unnecessary positions that could be eliminated today and save the company millions???...not hundreds of millions, like dropping 30,000 line workers, but millions in savings nonetheless...
Yes, I am pro-company, but not pro-incompetent mgmt...
Soon, I will remove the gloves and tell you how I really feel, but for now, I couch my words nicely, so my point is somewhat indirect...:):):):):)
Moreover, if high school educated workers could earn a $90,000 wages/benefits package across the board, then what do we do for nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists, chemists, college professors, teachers, research associates, accountants, archeologists, social workers, correctional officers, dieticians, engineers, etc.--all of whom require degrees, often advanced degrees--and all of whom are generally paid less than UAW workers (sometimes far less)? Again, there isn't the money available, private or public, to "move everyone up." But I doubt that the UAW has explained any of this to its membership.
As for rising health care costs - they think the government should fix that. And keep the imports out at the same time.
Bingo!
Really what you end up with is a 3 way battle between the sales guys, the bean counters and the engineers.
Sometimes its a wonder any cars get built at all.
You pretty much make my point.
-Rocky
The unions (UAW specifically) ask for higher than average and higher than market compensation and threaten to strike if they don't get it. That's extortion - pure and simple.
The unions (UAW specifically) ask for higher than average and higher than market compensation and threaten to strike if they don't get it. That's extortion - pure and simple.
I'm confident I could find somebody in India, that has more "degrees" than our nearest star the (Sun) to run Ford Motor Company for a million or two and not $28 million like ARM, and do a better job.
-Rocky
Leave the selection of top management to well educated and informed board members coming from a variety of industries.
I find very little funny about outsourcing.
A good friend just got laid off after training his replacement - in India.
-Rocky
I wish Fields and Mulally had been in control 7 years ago - Ford wouldn't be in this mess.
Sorry, having a mad half-hour and couldn't resist.
Now, the RWD sedan is supposedly coming, but probably not before the 2012 model year. Lincoln could be gone by then what with BMW and Audi planning 12 new models each by that time. Ford still doesn't get it that the stakes have been raised much, much higher. They are trying to do now what they should have been doing 10 years ago: a handful of new models to complement the LS. The target is different now, and model proliferation is the only way to get big volume anymore. In that light, Lincoln still has no real plans to save itself.
Experience Mark LT!
Not that I disagree -- my premier issue is the way the Lincoln LS was treated, not that it's anywhere near relevant anymore.
I am not sure myself what the brand means, even though I have owned a Town Car and a Continental in the 90's.
If and when Ford decides to define the Lincoln brand, they should bring emphasize some of historical achievements, such as the car's performance in the Carrera Panamerica.
Did Lincoln waste 10 years of product development? Of course they did. But that's water under the bridge now.
With Jag on the auction block that certainly opens up the Ford Luxury market. Mulally forcing global platform sharing brings viable RWD platforms back into play, something Lincoln could not afford by itself. Fields greenlighting the new Hurricane/Boss engines and TwinForce technology will provide the much needed power improvement. And based on the MKR concept - there is a direction now for Lincoln.
All the pieces are in place now, but it will take several years for Lincoln to get back even close to where it should be. You can't expect 10 years of neglect to be fixed overnight.
If anything they're killing Mercury which makes sense if you look at the imports who only have 2 brands (Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinit). My bet is they'll keep the Mercury brand but use it for niche vehicles in the future. Lincoln dealers will stand on their own or be combined with Ford dealers (already happening).
That's another thing still needing a fix: Ford's VERY long lead times between showing a model and actually selling it. We have been looking at the MKS for years now. No one saw the 08 Honda Accord undisguised until literally days before it went on sale. Hopefully, learning that lesson is the reason no one has seen the Lincoln "Flex" yet (and not that its introduction is planned well after the already slow-to-market Flex).
BTW, Jag on the auction block opens up nothing that wasn't available to be opened before. Jag, which is hardly a blip in the marketplace anyway, never competed with Lincoln...at least no more than (and probably less) than Volvo competes with Lincoln (or some Fords). Getting rid of Jag may be good because Ford management was never capable of attending to so many brands.
In Mulally's 14 months at the helm, sales have continued to plummet every month. Lincoln has increased somewhat by offering more models.
I have owned more Ford products than anything else among the 27 vehicles I have purchased. I owned Ford stock for many years (but no more...I'd rather stick needles under my eyelids). Say what you want, Nasser bashers, but the nosedive really took hold after he was dumped.
That is something I never understood. Nasser didn't seem like such a bad CEO at all. The acquisitions of Land Rover and Volvo were good moves. I don't think Ford would be selling LR if Jag wasn't in such bad shape. Combined is the only way those two companies can succeed so they must be a package deal. Jags reliability gains must be transfered over to Land Rover in full and Land Rovers marketing/sale successes must be transfered to jag.
Yes Ford depended to heavily on SUVs while ignoring their cars during Nasser's time as chairman but so did GM and Chrysler so that was an overall Domestic problem not just a Ford one.
Also, when Fields took over he sent several planned vehicles back to the drawing board including the F150 and Mustang because the changes were too conservative.
I believe we'll see things happen faster starting next year but Ford still seems to be committed to do things right even if it means more delays.
Ignore the first few
Scroll down to the 2004 with 46,000 at Jake Kaplan's for 24,995 with the 100,000 miles jag CPO warranty. You could probably buy that car for 22,500 or so maybe less depending on how slow they are this time of year.
In the early and mid-1990s Ford sold lots of Tauruses, Sables and Windstars with the 3.8 V-6 that was virtually guaranteed to blow its head gaskets after the 50,000 mile mark. Those vehicles also had terrible automatic transmissions. All three sold in very large numbers, and turned off quite a few buyers to Ford.
The Contour/Mystique were promising cars that needed more development, but Ford threw in the towel after one generation.
The 1996 Taurus failed because of the controversial styling and the previous generation's quality problems. Instead of sticking with the car, and improving the bad while emphasizing the good (as Toyota and Honda have done with their core vehicles), Ford let the car rot while it focused on SUV and pickup truck profits.
When Alex Trotman took charge, he launched the Ford 2000 reorganization scheme, which really hurt the company and threw it into chaos.
Nasser inherited a company that relied on trucks and SUVs to stay in business. It had serious problems that he either ignored, or made worse. The problems didn't start with him, but he didn't do much to correct those underlying problems that surfaced with a vengeance when the Japanese invaded the SUV market and gasoline costs began escalating.
I don't know of course, but I think the best the MKS will do is fend off a further bottoming. And the Lincoln Flex may pick up a few sales when the "Ford" MKX will have fallen off by then. This is not a great picture for a recovery. But at least it sounds like the suits have finally gotten the message. Much later than most people would, but even slow learners get it after awhile. Now, two more years minimum to a standout Lincoln vehicle (MKR). Hope they make it until then.
It also seems that Ford is putting more emphasis on Lincoln and less on Mercury going forward and that's a good thing. Short term I think the MKX and MKZ need more distinct sheetmetal and all the new MKS features. The Navigator needs new sheetmetal and they all need powertrain upgrades. Follow that with a new Town Car and MKR built on a new RWD platform and I think they'll be in great shape.
Remember the old saying: 9 women can't build Rome in a month!
In these later years of Ford losing so much market share, the starvation of both Lincoln and Mercury has come with a terrible cost. Lincoln cannot be both Lincoln and Mercury without watering down what a Lincoln is (as was done with the MKZ). Mercury could get attention and differentiation, regardless of the budget. Chrysler manages to differentiate Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep even as they struggle, and GM for the most part does not relegate Pontiac and Buick to just a trim level of Chevrolet.
Many readers suggest the Saturnization of Mercury. Given Mercury's past pathetic attempts to market European iron, I doubt the suits would ever go for that. But get Lincoln some real Lincolns (the MKR and new Town Car, plus another rear drrve derivative...and a CUV like MKX and an updated Navi). Then the MKZ and MKS with some trim changes would make excellent Mercurys.
Incidentally I just looked back at the Nov. sales figures. The MKZ was down 10% in November compared to Nov. 06 but it's actually UP 6% YTD over 2006. And the Town Car has been out of production for several months while production was moved to St. Thomas after Wixom was closed. They won't resume production until January. Since the TC is mostly fleet anyway I would expect the sales volume to return by February/March.
I do think the MKZ needs a refresh next year along with the 3.7L engine to stay relevant.