Jump to content

WTF happened....


Recommended Posts

 

And I'm not convinced it will be a "bad" year necessarily. They probably won't make as much profit as last year but if they still make $3B - 4B I'd consider that at least an OK year considering the current products.

 

It may not be a "bad" year profitability wise, in that the company will be riding F-series, but it sure will be sales wise, and seemingly around the globe too. There hasn't been many bright spots in the sales numbers either month this year. I know there's a long way to go still, but it doesn't look good so far.

 

Whoops, I guess you did quantify your statement with "considering the current products."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford the company is not at the whim of wall street as some companies are, they are immune I believe to corporate raiders. Therefore they can act like a private company in some respects which means they don't have to share too much of their future plans. I can't comment if Hackett has a plan or not but I doubt he would be in the position he is in without one, even if it is a bad plan.

Investors aside, let your employees know you have a plan. Being around this company my entire life with my father working in and around it and working here myself for 5 years I have never seen morale this bad.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incentives are going to start creeping up on the F-series with the new RAM and GM's launch into 2019 which will eat into profitability along with the aluminum tariffs. I wonder how many things are going to be decontented on the 2019 MY's to save some money. Other than the updated Edge there is 0 new product in Ford's lineup for the next year, that is going to be brutal. Next year will be better with the Ranger, Explorer, Focus and Escape coming but how that will help sales next year is going to depend on launch times.

To be honest I'm surprised the stock price is actually still above $10 a share. To top it off Ford might be launching a bunch of product in the middle of a down turn next year.

In stopping programs Fields F***** this company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Investors aside, let your employees know you have a plan. Being around this company my entire life with my father working in and around it and working here myself for 5 years I have never seen morale this bad.

Honestly -- That is almost anywhere now including 95% of the people I work with; they are just miserable. I guess I'm super rare I love my job and look forward to it everyday. My new thing is asking people why they are so unhappy and calling them out so to speak, if what they are unhappy about is never going to change I just suggest they find a new job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incentives are going to start creeping up on the F-series with the new RAM and GM's launch into 2019 which will eat into profitability along with the aluminum tariffs. I wonder how many things are going to be decontented on the 2019 MY's to save some money. Other than the updated Edge there is 0 new product in Ford's lineup for the next year, that is going to be brutal.

 

Ranger is late this year although it may be January before they show up on dealer lots. Expedition just launched. Again, not great but not the end of the world either. I don't see sales getting any worse unless as you say GM or RAM wage a bigger price war than they already did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Investors aside, let your employees know you have a plan. Being around this company my entire life with my father working in and around it and working here myself for 5 years I have never seen morale this bad.

 

 

I agree that employee morale should be addressed somehow. You may just have to wait and see what happens with the new products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board knows the plan and they're the only ones who count.

 

But we all know the plan - accelerate new products because that's essentially why Fields was fired.

 

The conventional wisdom around here right up to the announcement of the firing of Fields was that Ford management still had it going on, they knew what they were doing, they had a plan (and it was good), etc.. Implicit in all that misplaced confidence was that the board knew the plan, and they were the only ones that count.

 

I do not have any confidence in the board because, by their actions (and lack of same), they have done nothing to inspire confidence.

 

What people here are now saying (and I agree) is that they lack confidence in Hackett. Leadership requires behaving like a leader. Mulally instinctively understood that. Hackett apparently does not.

 

I remain hopeful that the new C products and new CD6 products will hit their marks. I hope so for the sake of Ford. Ford cannot enter the 20's with anything less than solid hits from these product programs.

Edited by Harley Lover
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly -- That is almost anywhere now including 95% of the people I work with; they are just miserable. I guess I'm super rare I love my job and look forward to it everyday. My new thing is asking people why they are so unhappy and calling them out so to speak, if what they are unhappy about is never going to change I just suggest they find a new job.

Im not going to speak for the white collar guys because I have limited knowledge of their situation, but from my personal opinion and what I see day to day, Hackett needs to shut the fuck up about cost cutting and start talking about quality and assure us that new stuff is coming, even if he cant be super specific about it.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 bucks says the Ranger doesn't hit lots in any significant numbers before April...........and i would LOVE to be wrong....

Probably pretty close with that, especially on the West Coast. One bright spot will be pent up demand for it and low incentives, though Ford might be smart to do a targeted incentive for people that order one that currently own a Tacoma/Ridgeline/Canyon/Colorado/Frontier as soon as the order banks open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In stopping programs Fields F***** this company.

This.

 

Indecision from the top, constant development holds and reviews, and outright cancellations of core productions was all on Fields. The team around him was cut out for a Mulally, or a Hackett even... but it did not work for Fields.

 

The system developed by Mulally, and Bill Jr for that matter, depended on the CEO for tone and direction. Once Fields was exposed and responsible for that, he couldn't commit to anything substantial enough for the talented team under him to execute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The conventional wisdom around here right up to the announcement of the firing of Fields was that Ford management still had it going on, they knew what they were doing, they had a plan (and it was good), etc.. Implicit in all that misplaced confidence was that the board knew the plan, and they were the only ones that count.

 

I do not have any confidence in the board because, by their actions (and lack of same), they have done nothing to inspire confidence.

 

What people here are now saying (and I agree) is that they lack confidence in Hackett. Leadership requires behaving like a leader. Mulally instinctively understood that. Hackett apparently does not.

 

I remain hopeful that the new C products and new CD6 products will hit their marks. I hope so for the sake of Ford. Ford cannot enter the 20's with anything less than solid hits from these product programs.

 

Well, really the plan should have been simple - just redo the entire lineup, which was needed a few years ago for some models. But Fields thought for some reason that they could ride it out without problems.

 

It's so strange to hear you talk about the 20's haha.

 

This.

 

Indecision from the top, constant development holds and reviews, and outright cancellations of core productions was all on Fields. The team around him was cut out for a Mulally, or a Hackett even... but it did not work for Fields.

 

The system developed by Mulally, and Bill Jr for that matter, depended on the CEO for tone and direction. Once Fields was exposed and responsible for that, he couldn't commit to anything substantial enough for the talented team under him to execute.

 

Hackett sure hasn't done much better in the tone/direction part, at least thus far. Things may be happening internally, but it certainly doesn't look like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conventional wisdom around here right up to the announcement of the firing of Fields was that Ford management still had it going on, they knew what they were doing, they had a plan (and it was good), etc.. Implicit in all that misplaced confidence was that the board knew the plan, and they were the only ones that count.

 

I do not have any confidence in the board because, by their actions (and lack of same), they have done nothing to inspire confidence.

 

Fields convinced the board that a downturn was coming and he was preparing for it. Had he been right about that he may still be CEO. But he was wrong, product sales suffered and his inability or unwillingness to work with new partners and cancelling the new Mexican plant was the last straw that proved to the board he needed to go.

 

Did the board take too long to change? Maybe. I’m not implying that the board is always right or that they’re right or wrong about Hackett. I’m just saying that the board is the only one who needs to know the details of his plans and it’s their decision to keep him or not. I wasn’t making any judgement about whether it’s good or bad, right or wrong or whether the board is smart or not.

 

Hackett was brought in to do a quick turnaround and fix the product issues. I would prefer that he also focus on quality instead of cost cutting but that’s not always possible in a given situation. I’m sure product acceleration is expensive.

 

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t pay much attention to what CEOs say, I pay attention to what they do and unfortunately it will still be a year or two before we see the fruits of what he’s doing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW if you just want to say that Hackett isn’t a great leader I would have to agree, at least from a public relations standpoint. But that’s not what Ford needs right now. They need to get products back on track and new stuff out the door.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ imho Fomoco needs a "private-Machiavelli" &but a public "Mulally-cheerleader"

...

something makes me think Mary Barra might just be capable of BOTH

 

This.

Indecision from the top, constant development holds and reviews, and outright cancellations of core productions was all on Fields. The team around him was cut out for a Mulally, or a Hackett even... but it did not work for Fields.

The system developed by Mulally, and Bill Jr for that matter, depended on the CEO for tone and direction. Once Fields was exposed and responsible for that, he couldn't commit to anything substantial enough for the talented team under him to execute.

 

 

 

akirby:

Fields convinced the board that a downturn was coming and he was preparing for it...

maybe one of you KNOWS (I sure don't) & could verify

WHO was the debbie-downer? Fields or the Board?...with the OTHER One getting talked into doing what they didn't really want to

 

looking at it from outside, afaik it could've been either way...

...& actually easier for me to believe the Board forced Fields to do their dirty (non)work and when things went bad

were over-joyed to use him as their scapegoat

 

my basic premise = one suit is Bad; multiple suits raises the Badness to the power of the number of suits involved

 

 

unrelated (afaik)

...It's so strange to hear you talk about the 20's haha...

WHY?

Edited by 2b2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fields convinced the board that a downturn was coming and he was preparing for it. Had he been right about that he may still be CEO. But he was wrong, product sales suffered and his inability or unwillingness to work with new partners and cancelling the new Mexican plant was the last straw that proved to the board he needed to go.

 

Did the board take too long to change? Maybe. I’m not implying that the board is always right or that they’re right or wrong about Hackett. I’m just saying that the board is the only one who needs to know the details of his plans and it’s their decision to keep him or not. I wasn’t making any judgement about whether it’s good or bad, right or wrong or whether the board is smart or not.

 

Hackett was brought in to do a quick turnaround and fix the product issues. I would prefer that he also focus on quality instead of cost cutting but that’s not always possible in a given situation. I’m sure product acceleration is expensive.

 

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t pay much attention to what CEOs say, I pay attention to what they do and unfortunately it will still be a year or two before we see the fruits of what he’s doing now.

 

I'd even argue that a downturn is when you need to spend the most (well, at least keep funding products as needed) - if the market is going down, your product should be the one people want to buy over the competition, and you could even pull some sales with a fresh product, whereas people might say 'we can wait' if the product is old.

 

^ imho Fomoco needs a "private-Machiavelli" &but a public "Mulally-cheerleader"

...

something makes me think Mary Barra might just be capable of BOTH

 

maybe one of you KNOWS (I sure don't) & could verify

WHO was the debbie-downer? Fields or the Board?...with the OTHER One getting talked into doing what they didn't really want to

 

looking at it from outside, afaik it could've been either way...

...& actually easier for me to believe the Board forced Fields to do their dirty (non)work and when things went bad

were over-joyed to use him as their scapegoat

 

my basic premise = one suit is Bad; multiple suits raises the Badness to the power of the number of suits involved

 

 

unrelated (afaik)

WHY?

 

Because I think 1920s when I hear it, but we're about to be in the 2020s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe one of you KNOWS (I sure don't) & could verify

WHO was the debbie-downer? Fields or the Board?...with the OTHER One getting talked into doing what they didn't really want to

 

looking at it from outside, afaik it could've been either way...

...& actually easier for me to believe the Board forced Fields to do their dirty (non)work and when things went bad

were over-joyed to use him as their scapegoat

 

Boards don't make product decisions like that. No board of directors is going to tell the CEO to extend the current Explorer for 2 more years and delay the new platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there stuff coming, Bullet, GT500, Edge, Ranger., diesel F150

...what i want to know is what about the Model E which has been on the table for how long?....same gos for the Bronco....we need excitement for the mass market not niche...the most exciting release ( from a sales standpoint ) is the upcoming ranger, and as stated, I worry about them having all their eggs in one powertrain basket....there still a massive anti turbo faction that would rather have a V6 of some sort...

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford has a pretty strict product lifecycle schedule, Explorer in particular has always run fairly long (each generation lasting 10 years with periodic MCEs). Although the platform is one of the oldest in the business, the Explorer was still an all-new product in 2011 and Ford likes to get 8-10 years out of a vehicle so really it's arriving right on time. I don't really buy that things were delayed especially since this isn't something you can turn around considering how many moving parts there are in a schedule.

 

As for Ranger, great addition to finally add to the Ford fleet, but it's also something of an old product since it debuted in 2011. It would be little like Ford bringing the current gen Explorer to China with a mild facelift and calling it a day. There is something very stale about that effort along with the EcoSport. I'm use to Ford showing up only when it's absolutely ready to lead...and that's clearly not the objective here....they just want to show up late.

Edited by Assimilator
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Boards don't make product decisions like that. No board of directors is going to tell the CEO to extend the current Explorer for 2 more years and delay the new platform.

 

They could, however, tell the CEO "we want you to focus more on mobility," which could conversely be turned by the CEO into sucking resources out of the product side and putting them into the mobility stuff.

 

there stuff coming, Bullet, GT500, Edge, Ranger., diesel F150

...what i want to know is what about the Model E which has been on the table for how long?....same gos for the Bronco....we need excitement for the mass market not niche...the most exciting release ( from a sales standpoint ) is the upcoming ranger, and as stated, I worry about them having all their eggs in one powertrain basket....there still a massive anti turbo faction that would rather have a V6 of some sort...

 

Is Model E now the Mach 1? or is it a separate entity from that product (i.e. Focus sized)?

 

Ford has a pretty strict product lifecycle schedule, Explorer in particular has always run fairly long (each generation lasting 10 years with periodic MCEs). Although the platform is one of the oldest in the business, the Explorer was still an all-new product in 2011 and Ford likes to get 8-10 years out of a vehicle so really it's arriving right on time. I don't really buy that things were delayed especially since this isn't something you can turn around considering how many moving parts there are in a schedule.

 

As for Ranger, great addition to finally add to the Ford fleet, but it's also something of an old product since it debuted in 2011. It would be little like Ford bringing the current gen Explorer to China with a mild facelift and calling it a day. There is something very stale about that effort along with the EcoSport. I'm use to Ford showing up only when it's absolutely ready to lead...and that's clearly not the objective here....they just want to show up late.

 

I think the US Ranger is (much like the EcoSport in fact) a short life product - one to get them an entry into the market, but not the product they necessarily want here, and one that will be completely replaced in a few years by an all new model that has the US planned in the project from the beginning. Of course, I thought they were going to to do this from the beginning rather than what they did (I thought our Ranger would be the next-gen model that would then trickle out to the ROW after ours debuted).

 

I've also read rumors that Bronco will actually usher in the next-gen platform, though that doesn't entirely make sense from a production standpoint (using a new and old platform in the same factory), and that Ranger would be replaced around 2021.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...