Think Bush has it bad- try being Bill Ford Jr.

[Footballfan]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[RichardJensen]

Here's food for thought on this debate:

 

Turn the clock back to 2001.

 

Nominate an executive at FoMoCo in place of Bill, and argue why this person would've been better equipped to run the company.

 

Short of that, feel free to toss all the tomatoes at Bill you want, knowing that it's easy to nitpick when you've got no accountability whatsoever.

[WC-MAN]

It's gonna be hard going for anyone. These are changes that should have been made 15 years ago when the SUV market's emergence allowed Ford to hide from the competition and keep doing things the way they always have. Ford's corperate culture needs to be changed, and that's much harder than dealing with the UAW or meeting CAFE standards.

[DCK]

Here's food for thought on this debate:

 

Turn the clock back to 2001.

 

Nominate an executive at FoMoCo in place of Bill, and argue why this person would've been better equipped to run the company.

 

Short of that, feel free to toss all the tomatoes at Bill you want, knowing that it's easy to nitpick when you've got no accountability whatsoever.

Oh yes, Bill Ford is a geniuus and he did a fantastic job...............nearly bankrupting the company.

 

What you demand out of people who bash at Bill is simply dumb. "Name someone who would of done a better job" is just pointless, the fact is Bill only had his last nam as merit to run the company. Many terrible descisions(simply look at the product.................it is clear he provided absolutely no direction for the company at all, they have no idea where to go) and you think by asking that, IMO very ill-minded question it automatically makes you right and Bill ford great. What a joke, Bill ford takes no responsibility, it is like this is some sort of a game only with a multi-billion dollar company and thousands of people financial lives on the line. He did nothing, making promises after promises only to become the laughing stock in the media for then backtracking on those promises, products were complete failures, products abandoned on the market place...........................terrible terrible terrible.

[Bluecon]

Here's food for thought on this debate:

 

Turn the clock back to 2001.

 

Nominate an executive at FoMoCo in place of Bill, and argue why this person would've been better equipped to run the company.

 

Short of that, feel free to toss all the tomatoes at Bill you want, knowing that it's easy to nitpick when you've got no accountability whatsoever.

How can anybody continue to defend Bill jr.? The facts are, everything he touches goes down the tubes.

 

If he was not capable of doing the job he should not have taken the job. Not destroy the company and then complain it is not his fault. The best thing for FMC would be for the Ford family to walk away.

[hbalek]

How can anybody continue to defend Bill jr.? The facts are, everything he touches goes down the tubes.

 

If he was not capable of doing the job he should not have taken the job. Not destroy the company and then complain it is not his fault. The best thing for FMC would be for the Ford family to walk away.

 

 

The fact is Ford, BEFORE Bill Ford took over, had not launched an all new car since 1996!!!!! His predecessors were idiots who let the competition get ahead of Ford. He started as CEO in late 2001, by late 2004, THREE years later, they launched the FiveHundred, Freestyle, first new Mustang in 25 years, Escape Hybrid and Ford GT. That's a lot of new car launched in less than 3 years. Before 2001, all they launched was Euro-based Focus, Escape, and truck-based SUV's.

[Bluecon]

The fact is Ford, BEFORE Bill Ford took over, had not launched an all new car since 1996!!!!! His predecessors were idiots who let the competition get ahead of Ford. He started as CEO in late 2001, by late 2004, THREE years later, they launched the FiveHundred, Freestyle, first new Mustang in 25 years, Escape Hybrid and Ford GT. That's a lot of new car launched in less than 3 years. Before 2001, all they launched was Euro-based Focus, Escape, and truck-based SUV's.

Bill Ford was at or near the top long before 2001. Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes.

[jpd80]

The problems at Ford are less about their products and more about how the company operates its business. Internally, a disfunctional subculture of dissociation or at least lack of communication had emerged throughout the company. The succesive CEOs, Alex Trottman, Jac Nasser and even Bill Ford himself, all discovered the huge task of changing the mindset inside Ford. The hiring of Alan Mulally, an industry outsider, proves the point, there was no one at Ford suitably qualified or authoritative enough to execute the necessary changes needed to save it.

 

I don't mean to be part of the Mulally fan club, I just think he's a good CEO and his style is needed at this time.

Edited January 21, 2007 by jpd80

[Edstock]

"Bill Ford was at or near the top long before 2001. Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes."

 

And the point is?

 

Again with the brain farts. "Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes". Maybe you're right, but with no facts to back it up, it's just a brain fart.

 

We point this cerebral flatulence out to you frequently, yet you persist, so obviously this behavior is rewarding to you on some level. "Such folly smacks of genius; a lesser mind would be incapable" — Nero Wolfe (Rex Stout)

 

thanks for playing

 

[hbalek]

"Bill Ford was at or near the top long before 2001. Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes."

 

And the point is?

 

Again with the brain farts. "Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes". Maybe you're right, but with no facts to back it up, it's just a brain fart.

 

We point this cerebral flatulence out to you frequently, yet you persist, so obviously this behavior is rewarding to you on some level. "Such folly smacks of genius; a lesser mind would be incapable" — Nero Wolfe (Rex Stout)

 

thanks for playing

 

 

My point is there were no new cars in the pipeline until Bill Ford took over in 2001. The D3 cars and Ford GT weren't huge successes but the Mustang, Fusion, F-150, Edge are all great efforts for any car company. They weren't even trying from 1996 until 7 years later. The first new Lincoln in over 5 years, the Zephyr/MKZ was better than nothing.

[Footballfan]

Oh yes, Bill Ford is a geniuus and he did a fantastic job...............nearly bankrupting the company.

 

What you demand out of people who bash at Bill is simply dumb. "Name someone who would of done a better job" is just pointless, the fact is Bill only had his last nam as merit to run the company. Many terrible descisions(simply look at the product.................it is clear he provided absolutely no direction for the company at all, they have no idea where to go) and you think by asking that, IMO very ill-minded question it automatically makes you right and Bill ford great. What a joke, Bill ford takes no responsibility, it is like this is some sort of a game only with a multi-billion dollar company and thousands of people financial lives on the line. He did nothing, making promises after promises only to become the laughing stock in the media for then backtracking on those promises, products were complete failures, products abandoned on the market place...........................terrible terrible terrible.

 

Good points. An interesting point that Levin made was that Junior is also the cheif exec at the Detroit Lions, and they have been the worst franchise in professional sports this decade. What do cars and football have in common? Bad management is bad management. It is like the old saying I believe that Harry Truman had- "THe buck stops here." Is it fair? No, but that is the way it is.

 

As for the question of whom should have been hired? I can think of anyone who would have been better for this position. Try rehiring Donald Pererson or Red Polling for a time. Or hire someone from a company that you benchmark like Toyota. Point is, anyone could have done as poor a job as Junior has at this company, so hiring almost ANYONE else for this position would have had a lot of potential upside.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Footballfan

[RichardJensen]

hire someone from a company that you benchmark like Toyota

 

Who would've taken the job? Anyone offered a shot to run FoMoCo would have to be good enough to have a shot at running Toyota. Which would you choose? And how do you think the UAW would've handled that?

 

And do you think that it would work to have people 76 or 75 years old running Ford Motor (Poling & Petersen's ages in 2001).

 

Try harder.

 

You want to bellyache, that's fine.

 

But nobody's going to respect you unless you've got some alternative to propose.

[Footballfan]

 

Who would've taken the job? Anyone offered a shot to run FoMoCo would have to be good enough to have a shot at running Toyota. Which would you choose? And how do you think the UAW would've handled that?

 

And do you think that it would work to have people 76 or 75 years old running Ford Motor (Poling & Petersen's ages in 2001).

 

Try harder.

 

You want to bellyache, that's fine.

 

But nobody's going to respect you unless you've got some alternative to propose.

 

1) I think that in 2001, before things completely collapsed, there would have been a lot of people who would have taken the job- Ford was still the number two automaker in the world. Do I think the UAW would car if a Toyota person ran the show? I am sure they would have considering what they have gotten- layoffs and plant closings.

 

2) People in their 70s running things? It worked pretty well with GM and Robert Lutz- their turnaround is light years ahead of Ford and they actually have competitive product in most segements. I don't care about the age- Polling and Peterson had track records of success; unfortuatnely we cannot say the same for Junior.

 

3) Perhaphs you need to try harder if you think Junior is the best this company could have done. And regarding the respect thing, it seems like a lot of people respect my views because many are certainly the same regarding this management. You asked for people to replace Junior and I gave you them. You may want to come up with some alternatives yourself.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Footballfan

[Embalmers]

3) Perhaps you need to try harder if you think Junior is the best this company could have done. And regarding the respect thing, it seems like a lot of people respect my views because many are certainly the same. You asked for people to replace Junior and I gave you them. You may be the one that needs to stop bellyaching!

 

Footballfan:

 

Don't you realize that Mr. Jensen bleeds blue and almost always defends everything FMC does? He knows that the culture prevalent in Ford's upper management is the real reason they are in this predicament. Was it the workers? Suppliers? UAW? No, it was the general consensus that we're doing just fine selling trucks and SUV's and basically letting their car lineup vanish with little or no money invested. I owned a 1997 Thunderbird LX Sport - a Motor Trend car of the year in 1989 - that Ford left virtually unchanged except for powertrain reasons over 8 years. And they wondered why sales fell slowly over those years. But, Ford needed the 4.6L motor to stuff in profit filled trucks, so the Thunderbird/Cougar/MarkVIII was cancelled even though they sold 100,000 units. Pretty typical stuff at Ford - after the 1997 model year they cancelled the Aspire, the Aerostar, the Contour, Escort and the Probe.

 

Unfortunately sometimes Richard thinks a little too much like the execs at Ford that put them in this mess.

[Footballfan]

Footballfan:

 

Don't you realize that Mr. Jensen bleeds blue and almost always defends everything FMC does? He knows that the culture prevalent in Ford's upper management is the real reason they are in this predicament. Was it the workers? Suppliers? UAW? No, it was the general consensus that we're doing just fine selling trucks and SUV's and basically letting their car lineup vanish with little or no money invested. I owned a 1997 Thunderbird LX Sport - a Motor Trend car of the year in 1989 - that Ford left virtually unchanged except for powertrain reasons over 8 years. And they wondered why sales fell slowly over those years. But, Ford needed the 4.6L motor to stuff in profit filled trucks, so the Thunderbird/Cougar/MarkVIII was cancelled even though they sold 100,000 units. Pretty typical stuff at Ford - after the 1997 model year they cancelled the Aspire, the Aerostar, the Contour, Escort and the Probe.

 

Unfortunately sometimes Richard thinks a little too much like the execs at Ford that put them in this mess.

 

I loved that T-bird and Mark XIII line. I am sure that the other automakers were more than happy to take those 100,000 sales as they were for the sales of the Windstar, the Ranger, et. al.

 

Regarding Richard, I don't know about him. Sometimes I think he IS Bill Ford Jr!

[RichardJensen]

1) I think that in 2001, before things completely collapsed, there would have been a lot of people who would have taken the job- Ford was still the number two automaker in the world. Do I think the UAW would car if a Toyota person ran the show? I am sure they would have considering what they have gotten- layoffs and plant closings.

 

2) People in their 70s running things? It worked pretty well with GM and Robert Lutz- their turnaround is light years ahead of Ford and they actually have competitive product in most segements. I don't care about the age- Polling and Peterson had track records of success; unfortuatnely we cannot say the same for Junior.

 

3) Perhaphs you need to try harder if you think Junior is the best this company could have done. And regarding the respect thing, it seems like a lot of people respect my views because many are certainly the same regarding this management. You asked for people to replace Junior and I gave you them. You may want to come up with some alternatives yourself.

1) Knowing then, what they know now, yes. At the time? Emmmmmmmm. Not gonna buy it.

 

2) Lutz is 6 years younger than Poling and 7 years younger than Petersen. Not to mention, Lutz doesn't have P&L responsibility for the entire corporation. And I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "GM is light years ahead" bandwagon. In midsize, fullsize, crossovers, and trucks, they're following Ford's lead. In terms of the Camaro, especially so.

 

3) I'm not saying that Jr. is the best Ford could've done. You're the one asserting that they could've done better. I'm just asking you to back up your assertion with something I can sink my teeth into. And I'm sorry, but two guys 81 and 80 years old these days, or an unnamed person from Toyoda City Japan just don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

Edited January 22, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Roadrunner]

Ford GT (was a) mistake.

 

I don't know - I think it raised the profile of the company and showed that Ford can produce a supercar.

[Bluecon]

"Bill Ford was at or near the top long before 2001. Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes."

 

And the point is?

 

Again with the brain farts. "Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes". Maybe you're right, but with no facts to back it up, it's just a brain fart.

 

We point this cerebral flatulence out to you frequently, yet you persist, so obviously this behavior is rewarding to you on some level. "Such folly smacks of genius; a lesser mind would be incapable" — Nero Wolfe (Rex Stout)

 

thanks for playing

 

Does the moderator not realize this is a hateful personal attack?

Where is the moderator?

Is he biased, and only pulls out the conduct code against those that disagree with him?

Is he incapable of moderating in an unbiased way?

[Bluecon]

"Bill Ford was at or near the top long before 2001. Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes."

 

And the point is?

 

Again with the brain farts. "Five Hundred, Freestyle and Ford GT were all mistakes". Maybe you're right, but with no facts to back it up, it's just a brain fart.

 

We point this cerebral flatulence out to you frequently, yet you persist, so obviously this behavior is rewarding to you on some level. "Such folly smacks of genius; a lesser mind would be incapable" — Nero Wolfe (Rex Stout)

 

thanks for playing

 

One needs only to check the sales numbers to realize these autos were failures or a waste of precious resources.

 

I find it interesting that at this point you are still defending you're obviously wrong position. A look at the yearly sales figures would suffice to provide the info you require.

 

When you lose the factual argument I think you believe insults will somehow change the facts and prove you right.

[FordManBrad]

I hated to see how Ford left the 89-97 generation T-Birds just languish. That 3.8 V6 underwent no improvements from day one to the very end. Then, it too fell victim to the head gasket failure syndrome. The 4.6 was a great improvement, but the base V6 models suffered from lack of performance. We have a 92 3.8 Cougar, and 96 and 97 4.6 T-Birds which have been great cars, except for the 3.8 head gaskets. Now, Ford offers us nothing to replace them with. The pricey 2002 T-Bird was a flop, and its long gone too. When you look back on the glory days of those models, from the beautiful '77 models to the trend setting aero coupe in the 80's and the 90's models with independent rear suspension and OHC V8 engines, its a shame that the nameplate has been relegated to mothballs.

[ZanatWork]

Ford GT...troublesome launch, but I'm trying to find a review that disliked it. I read many. Can't remember one.

 

D3 cars...forced to debut before the 3.5 could be ready, and conservativley styled...but I'll wager anyone calling them poor vehicles has yet to drive one. The ride/handling/interior space/safety/quality have all been very good...bUt the advertising was either borderline nonexistent (sedans) or bizarre and depressing (Freestyle).

 

I can't call the vehicles mistakes, nor have I seen any real argument (as opposed to hateful opinionated froth) that proves them so. Ford didn't keep the ads running, and essentially deserted PR for the cars.

[wescoent]

 

Who would've taken the job? Anyone offered a shot to run FoMoCo would have to be good enough to have a shot at running Toyota. Which would you choose? And how do you think the UAW would've handled that?

 

And do you think that it would work to have people 76 or 75 years old running Ford Motor (Poling & Petersen's ages in 2001).

 

Try harder.

 

You want to bellyache, that's fine.

 

But nobody's going to respect you unless you've got some alternative to propose.

 

I think the installment of Bill Ford as CEO represented an attempt by the bloated bureaucracy to preserve itself, and keep the good old days alive for a few more years.

 

Since the days of Henry Ford II, Ford has needed to hire a CEO who was willing to break up the Ford corporate culture of fiefdoms, and replace it with what Mullaly has been preaching since he got here. I don't know who that person is, since my profession is not an executive recruiter.

 

Ford needed to stop thinking like the unbreakable industry leader, and to recognize that if they didn't change, they would implode (and they almost did). Bill wasn't the CEO they needed. Ford needed to open up their pockets, and pay someone to fix the place. EVERYONE has a price, including corporate executives.

 

If an Alan Mullaly was hired in 2001, we simply would not be in the situation we're in now.

[Bluecon]

Ford GT...troublesome launch, but I'm trying to find a review that disliked it. I read many. Can't remember one.

 

D3 cars...forced to debut before the 3.5 could be ready, and conservativley styled...but I'll wager anyone calling them poor vehicles has yet to drive one. The ride/handling/interior space/safety/quality have all been very good...bUt the advertising was either borderline nonexistent (sedans) or bizarre and depressing (Freestyle).

 

I can't call the vehicles mistakes, nor have I seen any real argument (as opposed to hateful opinionated froth) that proves them so. Ford didn't keep the ads running, and essentially deserted PR for the cars.

The money spent on the GT should have been spent new vehicles/engines, not a short lived show car. They don't have that kind of money to waste.

 

The D3 sales are what I am referring to. I agree with Mulally that they should have updated the Taurus and I also think that the Panther cars should have been updated. The D3 cars were a blunder and totally unnecessary.

[RichardJensen]

1) Bill Ford's hiring came from the board of directors, not the 'bloated bureaucracy'.

 

2) HF II did not inherit a 'corporate culture of fiefdoms' as such. Ernie Breech, his lieutenants from GM, and the Whiz Kids, using GM as a basis, reorganized Ford in the late 40s and 50s into much the same form that it is today.

 

However, toward the end of the 60s and into the 70s, HF II's cult of personality led to others under him cultivating similar followings, and it was during this period that Ford's upper management became a roiling pot of political intrigue that has continued down to this day, through good times and bad.

[Bluecon]

If Mulally provides the same leadership as displayed by Bill jr. the company will be shortly bankrupt. Fortunately unlike Bill jr.'s background of failure, Mulally has a distinguished and successful career and proven track record upon which to base the future success of the FMC.