jasik Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 :shrug: LINK 0.15X17,000,000 = 2,550,000 not 3,600,000! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 "But if U.S. auto sales run at a rate of 17 million units a year, Ford's share at 15% would be 2.55 million vehicles -- more than 1 million below its capacity. Adding in sales to Canada, Mexico and other nations would not push Ford's output much past 3 million units." Apparently, a whole lot of people cant read. Sales are down 25%. Capacity will be reduced 25%. Both now, 10 years ago and 10 years from now, capacity does/has/will exceed sales. Besides the fact that the journalists asking the questions wouldn't know how to research the market the report on if they had a gun to their heads. Caluclating capacity and share and so forth isn't as simple as saying 17MM x 0.15. I think the problem is the speech writers not putting in a more moronic tone so the armchair dumbshits might figure it out without a roadmap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Don Leclair said Ford's estimates were 3.1M production (U.S., Canada, Mexico) by end of '08, vs. 3.6M units of capacity. I don't think capacity can be cut any faster, without outsize investment in shifting production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 you dont want capacity and sales to be the same. Extra capacity is required to buffer problems with assembly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasik Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 LINK Clarification on capacity issue. Two to three more plants need to be closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 (edited) How come Toyota can do it? They are running OVER capacity. LINK and what happens when they have a line shut down for an hour? And looky, looky. Lots of overtime. That comes at a cost. Ford doesnt have the luxury of making customers wait 4 months for a car like Toyota does. Running AT capacity is a poor business decision. Edited September 17, 2006 by J-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks will fly Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 and what happens when they have a line shut down for an hour? And looky, looky. Lots of overtime. That comes at a cost. Ford doesnt have the luxury of making customers wait 4 months for a car like Toyota does. Running AT capacity is a poor business decision. Overtime IS still cheaper, why is this so hard to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Overtime IS still cheaper, why is this so hard to understand? In the long run running OT is not cheaper. It is fact that a plant should not run at 100% capacity. You should have at least 3-5% excess or else you are asking for trouble. Toyota may be running plants at 100%+ but I gaurantee that is short term and not apart of their mid or long term plans. It is a disaster waiting to happen. The media and investors love it because it shows strong demand but from a manufacturing standpoint it is NOT a sound practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks will fly Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 In the long run running OT is not cheaper. It is fact that a plant should not run at 100% capacity. You should have at least 3-5% excess or else you are asking for trouble. Toyota may be running plants at 100%+ but I gaurantee that is short term and not apart of their mid or long term plans. It is a disaster waiting to happen. The media and investors love it because it shows strong demand but from a manufacturing standpoint it is NOT a sound practice. It is cheaper without a doubt. If you remember those BS numbers that we make anywhere from 61 to 80 dollars per hour it is based on a 40 hour work week. So if I make $30 an hour on my check, overtime would be $45 for time and a half and $60 for double time. After 40 hours they do not have to pay anything except social sercurity and medicare tax. Do the math it is cheaper to pay overtime. This is Ford's old way of doing bis long ago before the pretty people started running the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 It is cheaper without a doubt. If you remember those BS numbers that we make anywhere from 61 to 80 dollars per hour it is based on a 40 hour work week. So if I make $30 an hour on my check, overtime would be $45 for time and a half and $60 for double time. After 40 hours they do not have to pay anything except social sercurity and medicare tax. Do the math it is cheaper to pay overtime. This is Ford's old way of doing bis long ago before the pretty people started running the show. it is also a fact that productivity goes down drastically after 8 hours daily and 40 hours weekly. This translates into additional defects if line speeds are kept constant. From a variable worker cost, yes its cheaper but you also need to factor in warranty claim costs, injury costs, etc. COnstant overtime is NOT cheaper and there are many HR/accounting studies that confirm that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 My house runs better when I work overtime! :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 It is cheaper without a doubt. If you remember those BS numbers that we make anywhere from 61 to 80 dollars per hour it is based on a 40 hour work week. So if I make $30 an hour on my check, overtime would be $45 for time and a half and $60 for double time. After 40 hours they do not have to pay anything except social sercurity and medicare tax. Do the math it is cheaper to pay overtime. This is Ford's old way of doing bis long ago before the pretty people started running the show. There are more things involved in calculating the cost of running a plant at capacity then OT. As mentioned productivity is drastically reduced when a plant runs at capacity and so does quality. To calcualate wages as the only cost is grossly underestimating the costs of running at capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Hasn't Ford's KTP been running on 3 shifts for quite a few years now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Am I missing something? Is Ford closing Louisville? If yes, where are they going to make the Super Duties? And what is Ford's worldwide sales? I thought it was around 5 or 6 millions units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Ford has two plants in the Louisville area: Louisville Assembly Plant (home of the Explorer, Mountaineer, Sport Trac) Kentucky Truck Plant (Super Duties--used to be class 6-8) Ford's world wide sales are roughly 7M excl. Mazda. There are two other plants slated for closure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.