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

[Dolphy]

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.

 

What did Bill Ford have to due with those decisions? He wasn't CEO at the time.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Dolphy

[pcsario]

Fact of the matter is all people do when it comes to Bill Ford is give excuses.

 

"It wasn't Bill Ford's fault... he inherited a lot of problems blah blah blah Nasser poor Bill Ford"

 

"No, the new Fuck us, downgraded brakes in the Escape, and so on weren't his faults either, so who cares if Ford is in the shitter... Nasser... the past... not his fault... pity him... pretty please"

 

"No, the Ford GT wasn't a mistake. I'll pretend the costly recalls were free and FordGTprices.com never existed."

etc etc etc.

 

People hate to admit it, but the Lions wasn't a coincidence either.

 

Bill Ford wasn't an alien to all things Ford back in 2001. Bottomline is he was made CEO because of his last name, period.

 

All he proved is he's an incompetent junior

 

The fact we're in 2007, and people are still blaming Nasser for Ford's current mess, just points out how full of denial some of you are when it comes to Bill Ford. GM's turnaround started way after Bill Ford was in charge, and they're already ahead in several areas. DCX isn't in much better shape, but it's safe to say they tried harder than Bill Ford as well. And of course... I don't need to mention Carlos Ghosn to drive the point further.

 

Sorry people, but after more than half a decade, blaming Nasser and asking for forgiveness just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

Bluecon and DCK are right. This is entirely the result of Bill Ford's incompetence.

Edited January 22, 2007 by pcsario

[wescoent]

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.

 

The D3 cars are a good example of what was wrong with Ford in the late 90's up until not long ago. The program started out as Ford taking advantage of the Volvo P2 platform, and trying to build a Taurus replacement off of it, under Nasser's direction. A good idea at fruition. It quickly spun out of control, and became far too large and costly to be a Taurus replacement. In the middle of development, some manager realized it was crap, and sent it back to the drawing board., delaying a launch that was meant to happen in 2001 or 2002 if things had proceeded according to schedule, but it ended up launching in 2004-2005 with a 200hp V6. In the meantime, Nissan had kicked things up a notch with the VQ, and everyone scrambled to follow, leaving Ford in the dust.

 

Two corrective actions then needed to be taken, namely, the development of the Fusion to cover the low end of the market that the Five Hundred did not cover, and the development of the 3.5L Duratec to give the Five Hundred a worthy engine. All the while, the Taurus had to languish without a redesign.

[TheLemon]

"His tenure will be remembered for his hiring of an environmental specialist to grow grass on the roof of Ford's new Dearborn, Michigan, assembly plant."

 

 

Maybe he shoud grow some marijuana on the roof and make more profit.

 

[ZanatWork]

Fact of the matter is all people do when it comes to Bill Ford is give excuses.

 

"It wasn't Bill Ford's fault... he inherited a lot of problems blah blah blah Nasser poor Bill Ford"

 

"No, the new Fuck us, downgraded brakes in the Escape, and so on weren't his faults either, so who cares if Ford is in the shitter... Nasser... the past... not his fault... pity him... pretty please"

 

"No, the Ford GT wasn't a mistake. I'll pretend the costly recalls were free and FordGTprices.com never existed."

etc etc etc.

 

People hate to admit it, but the Lions wasn't a coincidence either.

 

Bill Ford wasn't an alien to all things Ford back in 2001. Bottomline is he was made CEO because of his last name, period.

 

All he proved is he's an incompetent junior

 

The fact we're in 2007, and people are still blaming Nasser for Ford's current mess, just points out how full of denial some of you are when it comes to Bill Ford. GM's turnaround started way after Bill Ford was in charge, and they're already ahead in several areas. DCX isn't in much better shape, but it's safe to say they tried harder than Bill Ford as well. And of course... I don't need to mention Carlos Ghosn to drive the point further.

 

Sorry people, but after more than half a decade, blaming Nasser and asking for forgiveness just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

Bluecon and DCK are right. This is entirely the result of Bill Ford's incompetence.

 

 

A couple updates:

 

1. Bill Ford SENIOR runs the Lions...both DetNEws and the the NFL news/rumors section of CNN/SI has stories talking about how Jr. wanted Millen gone and a host of other changes...Dad nixed it. Sorry if the truth disarms the incorrect rant, and all....

 

2. As much as people bring up Nasser's legendarily damaging stupidiy, there are those who just disregard it. Understand this: the quality issues of the early 21st century stuff and the delay of multiple drivetrain programs is on him...and the results of both are problems that aren't totally solved yet. This is reality. The damage was pretty deep.

 

 

Now...Bill Ford was FAR too conservative, and blew some calls. The new Focus? The new Escape? Absolute examples of over-conservative and obsolete processes. The Mustang and The F-series go the other way, though, and Bill in particular signed off on things that have allowed the current Mustang to find over 300,000 homes in a dead coupe market.

 

 

I don't understand why the "Hate Out on Bill Club" always refuses to give credit for the quality improvements, the fact that Ford was the first domestic to play in the hybrid game, and the other things Bill Jr. did RIGHT.

 

As he's already stepped aside, all this (badly aimed) hate accomplishes...less than nothing. Give yourselves a big hand, haters!

 

:beatdeadhorse: :party2: :roses:

[pcsario]

No, we are not ignoring the quality improvements. Problem is, mostly everyone's ratings went up, not just Fords. (At least Hyundai's, GM's, etc.). It was an industry trend that Ford just HAD to get into. That's like saying we're ignoring the fact Ford also makes cars again. No one is saying anything in either way (praising/bashing it), so I don't see why it's now a big deal. Again the industry demanded a massive improvement in quality, everyone's stepping up their game there, not just Ford. GM didn't had any problem driving the price of their stuck up... hmmm... competent leadership providing results and not excuses, imagine that concept.

 

Also, all the 2003-2004 products (CY not MY) were still Nasser's stuff, and yes, that includes the F150, which Nasser allowed to get through the roof in terms of develpment/production costs. By the same token, you can't blame Nasser selectively and then give Bill Ford a pat in the back for the Mustang.

 

He might've left weeks ago, but we're stuck with his idiocy for years to come. Stuck with the Fuck us until 2010. Stuck with the Escape until 2012. Stuck with the terribly refreshed D3's until 2011 and so on.

 

95% Fuckups

5% quality improvemets.

 

But I guess you're right, 5% > 95%...

 

LOL

Edited January 23, 2007 by pcsario

[jpd80]

While we can all complain about the failings of Ford, remember that the Ford Family as 40% stock holders were the biggest losers.

When the recovery comes, those stock holding and profits are really going to take off. Outside of the USA Ford is running well.

Dam shame about the mess FNA is in, that's what you get when you have two chiefs, one for NA and one for the rest of us.

Edited January 22, 2007 by jpd80

[DCK]

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

 

 

What a joke, Like if it was Bill Smith he would have gotten the job...................please, your so full of it. Looking at the current situation there is no question that anyone who thinks Bill Ford was good is nothing but a biased fool.

 

Now you can say he made some good choices, then I will certainly agree with that, but with far too many bad choices.....................or heck doing nothing at all in many cases, that far outweighs the few good things he did for Ford.

 

The answer is simply in Fords Current status..............................sales falling faster than ever before and Ford heading towards bankruptcy, Richard I think some enron execs need you to go defend Ken Lay now...................................

Edited January 22, 2007 by DCK

[DCK]

While we can all complain about the failings of Ford, remember that the Ford Family as 40% stock holders were the biggest losers.

When the recovery comes, those stock holding and profits are really going to take off. Outside of the USA Ford is running well.

Dam shame about the mess FNA is in, that's what you get when you have two chiefs, one for NA and one for the rest of us.

Ford Family does not own 40% of the stock, they have some BS plan where they control 40% of the voting rights but they only own a miniscule fraction of the stock. Meaning they make terrible descisions and the stock owners get hurt(again they only own a very small percentage)

Edited January 22, 2007 by DCK

[mustang_sallad]

Sure, he wasn't a Carlos Ghosn, but I liked him a lot. Sure, another CEO might've been able to turn this company around a couple years ago (did that other CEO actually exist at the time?), but it was Bill Ford jr. who kept me interested in this company over the past couple years. If it weren't for him, I woulda quit caring about Ford years ago, and I'm sure they'd be really upset by that.

 

And don't bash the green roof! That thing's awesome, I believe its still the largest green roof in the world. We spoke about it last week in this architecture course i'm taking, taught by the chair of the US green building council.

[RichardJensen]

What a joke, Like if it was Bill Smith he would have gotten the job...................please, your so full of it.

Uh... What I said there was a direct response to an assertion that "the bloated bureaucracy" hired Bill Ford....... They didn't. End of story. No debate.

[jpd80]

Ford Family does not own 40% of the stock, they have some BS plan where they control 40% of the voting rights but they only own a miniscule fraction of the stock. Meaning they make terrible descisions and the stock owners get hurt(again they only own a very small percentage)

 

 

The special voting shares held by the family have 40% of the vote, the 1.8 billion shares outside that have 60% of the vote. On the strength of it those special voting shares are worth at Least $8 Billion if they wanted to sell out. To get a voting control someone would need to have 1.5 Billion shares or about $10 Billion, but a trade like that would force the price up much further. So as I say, when the turnaround comes guess who will see the most benefit?

Edited January 23, 2007 by jpd80

[pcsario]

Looking at the current situation there is no question that anyone who thinks Bill Ford was good is nothing but a biased fool.

 

Truer words have never been said.

[bb62]

The initial question was - was there anybody in 2001 who would have been a better choice than Billy Ford. Yes there was and he WAS hired back for a short time, but not in the CEO position that he should have been in. I am talking of Allan Gilmour. Quite frankly, Gilmour should have been selected as CEO instead of Trotman who started Ford on the downslide with his disastrous "Ford 2000" implementation (of a good idea gone bad - long story). And Ed Hagenlocker should have been ceded the ball when Gilmour would have retired. This would have left Ford in the hands of premier finance and product planning people who like Peterson and Poling before them would have insisted on professional behavior and results without histrionics.

 

Somehow all this seems consistent with the Ford family though. Grandpa Ford was as anti-Semitic as they came. The Ford family during the mid 90s was afraid of a gay running the show. That Gilmour was gay should not have disqualified him from the top job. And though I say that as someone who basically conservative (and ambivalent about gays), it was still would have been a FAR better decision to have Gilmour as CEO.

[RichardJensen]

Well, and there you have it. bb62 wins. Gilmour's absolutely a solid answer. I doubt that he would've been able to overturn the culture of intrigue at Ford---but then Bill Ford couldn't do that either.

 

I do wonder if he would've been able to clean up product development (market orientation and global architecture sharing)--would he, in short, have finished what Lew Veraldi didn't?

Edited January 23, 2007 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Well, and there you have it. bb62 wins. Gilmour's absolutely a solid answer. I doubt that he would've been able to overturn the culture of intrigue at Ford---but then Bill Ford couldn't do that either.

 

I do wonder if he would've been able to clean up product development (market orientation and global architecture sharing)--would he, in short, have finished what Lew Veraldi didn't?

 

And it was Bill Ford that asked him to come out of retirement. Wasn't Gilmour already 68 by that time?

Knowing this, Ford wouldn't risk giving him the CEOs position and then have him leave again.

If he'd been there when the axe fell on Nasser then maybe the board would have viewed him and Bill Ford differently.

 

Extract from 2002 interview:

Allan Gilmour: "Without ethics in business, there is no success"

"Gilmour concluded by posing some thought-provoking ethical dilemmas, which were followed by a question and answer session: -Should one fire a shady subordinate who is very successful-or just ignore him or her? If one's competitors are cheating-and winning-does that justify cheating? And what if one encounters reprehensible practices that are perfectly acceptable in a foreign country? "

 

I think a lot of large companies follow the later choice in each instance.

Edited January 23, 2007 by jpd80

[Bluecon]

And there is another one or why the stock is in the seven dollar range.

 

"And then there are the many whispers — no one dares say anything aloud — about Ford heiress Elena Ford, cousin to Ford Chairman Bill Ford. Two years ago, Elena Ford, 39, was promoted to the critical post of Ford's director of North America product marketing, planning and strategy. She previously was in charge of turning around the Mercury brand, which still remains troubled. Many insiders question her capabilities, but criticism is muted because she's the first female member of the Ford family to work directly for the company her great-great grandfather founded 103 years ago."

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Colum...rticleId=119082

[RichardJensen]

And it was Bill Ford that asked him to come out of retirement. Wasn't Gilmour already 68 by that time?

Knowing this, Ford wouldn't risk giving him the CEOs position and then have him leave again.

If he'd been there when the axe fell on Nasser then maybe the board would have viewed him and Bill Ford differently.

 

Extract from 2002 interview:

Allan Gilmour: "Without ethics in business, there is no success"

"Gilmour concluded by posing some thought-provoking ethical dilemmas, which were followed by a question and answer session: -Should one fire a shady subordinate who is very successful-or just ignore him or her? If one's competitors are cheating-and winning-does that justify cheating? And what if one encounters reprehensible practices that are perfectly acceptable in a foreign country? "

 

I think a lot of large companies follow the later choice in each instance.

It seems to me, that since Bill Ford ended up CEO in 2001, after Nasser crashed and burned, Gilmour would've been a better hire than Nasser. If such had happened, conceivably he could've stayed on until Fields was ready.

 

Gilmour, along with Bill Ford, have been the ethical backbone of the company. Ford is an industry leader in sustainable practices, thanks to these two.

[RichardJensen]

Grandpa Ford was as anti-Semitic as they came.

According to Robert Lacey, Henry Ford's antisemitism was largely theoretical. While publishing the most awful screeds in the Dearborn Times, he still sent a new Model T to the rabbi that lived down the street from his old workshop on Highland Avenue. According to Lacey, HF was puzzled when the Model T was returned, and sent the rabbi a letter asking him if anything was wrong.

[TheLemon]

The initial question was - was there anybody in 2001 who would have been a better choice than Billy Ford. Yes there was and he WAS hired back for a short time, but not in the CEO position that he should have been in. I am talking of Allan Gilmour. Quite frankly, Gilmour should have been selected as CEO instead of Trotman who started Ford on the downslide with his disastrous "Ford 2000" implementation (of a good idea gone bad - long story). And Ed Hagenlocker should have been ceded the ball when Gilmour would have retired. This would have left Ford in the hands of premier finance and product planning people who like Peterson and Poling before them would have insisted on professional behavior and results without histrionics.

 

Somehow all this seems consistent with the Ford family though. Grandpa Ford was as anti-Semitic as they came. The Ford family during the mid 90s was afraid of a gay running the show. That Gilmour was gay should not have disqualified him from the top job. And though I say that as someone who basically conservative (and ambivalent about gays), it was still would have been a FAR better decision to have Gilmour as CEO.

 

A gay running the show? What about Billy Boy and Mark Fields aka The Ambiguously Gay Duo???

[Bluecon]

According to Robert Lacey, Henry Ford's antisemitism was largely theoretical. While publishing the most awful screeds in the Dearborn Times, he still sent a new Model T to the rabbi that lived down the street from his old workshop on Highland Avenue. According to Lacey, HF was puzzled when the Model T was returned, and sent the rabbi a letter asking him if anything was wrong.

Theoretical anti-semitism? He was Hitler's buddy. What is theoretical anti-semitism?

He didn't kill any Jewish people himself? Are you saying he only thought about it?

[TheLemon]

Theoretical anti-semitism? He was Hitler's buddy. What is theoretical anti-semitism?

He didn't kill any Jewish people himself? Are you saying he only thought about it?

 

 

 

Ford accepts Nazi award

 

Henry Ford, center, is awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle by Nazi diplomats.

[Edstock]

Henry was somewhat twisted about the Jews. While reprehensible, it pales against the cynical behavior of IBM in WW2 in dealing with the Nazis.

 

Black, Edwin. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation' ISBN 0-609-60799-5

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag

[RichardJensen]

What is theoretical anti-semitism?

He didn't put it into practice. He published absolutely scandalous screeds that served to legitimize a conspiracy theory that deserved to die.

 

From Robert Lacey's "Ford, the Men and the Machine", p. 218-9:

 

Josephine Gomon, who got quite close to henry when she worked at Ford's Willow Run factory during the Second World War, told a story hinting at some sort of last-minute, almost deathbed repentance. Newsreel film showing the opening of the concentration camps was brought to the factory, she said, and when Henry Ford, by that time in his eighties, was confronted with the atrocities which finally and unanswerably laid bare the bestiality of the prejudice to which he had contributed, he collapsed with a stroke -- his last and most serious.

 

It is possible. Henry Ford's anti-Semitism was never the vindictive anti-Semitism of some racists, who seek power for the sake of the pain the can inflict. Without excusing Henry from the cnsequences of his actions, he can be absolved from that particular sin of intent. There was always an oddly detached, impersonal character to his pogrom. He was amazed when, soon after the anti-Semitic articles started appearing in the Dearborn Independent, Rabbi Leo Franklin, a friend and neighbour from the Fords' Edison Avenue days, returned the Model T which Henry sent him as an annual present.

 

"What's wrong, Dr. Franklin?" he asked. "Has anything come between us?"

 

Henry stayed on the best of terms with the architect Albert Kahn, who, himself, remained proud of the friendship. When Henry started getting interested in antiques, it was a Jewish dealer that he used. The Fair Lane butcher was Jewish. There were never fewer than 3,000 Jews employed in the Ford work force through any of these years. Henry Ford seems to have got on well with every Jew he met in his life, in fact.

 

Anti-Semitism was for Henry Ford a vehicle--

Edited January 23, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Bluecon]

He didn't put it into practice. He published absolutely scandalous screeds that served to legitimize a conspiracy theory that deserved to die.

 

From Robert Lacey's "Ford, the Men and the Machine", p. 218-9:

It still remains Henry was a big supporter of Hitler. He was the only American to recieve that Nazi award. I believe only 2 non Germans ever recieved it. On the other hand Hitler was quite widely supported before the war.