I'm reminded of another mogul who was forced to learn to drive during tough times. Eventually, he learned which was the velocitator and which was the deceleratrix.
In other news, I think Ford would have done better if, like Standard Oil, it was run by a half-eaten breakfast.
Is it inappropriate for me to say I like Mullaly? He came from Boeing, he's tried to right the ship at Ford pretty valiantly battling against an entrenched culture that refuses to listen to its customers. He's made real efforts, and it shows in the cars, which in the past 2 years have done well in the J.D. Power initial quality surveys. Longer-term reliability numbers will tell the tale, but you have to admit the cars look better too.
Yes, he said something dumb, on TV, but ya' know, he probably thinks he's worth it given the superficial impossibility of the job and his subsequent struggles.
@Wannabeer: No, I'm with you on Mulally. Willing to give the guy a chance.
Although if he doesn't work out, I'm going to start suspecting that nobody from a defense-contracting-type business is qualified for executive power in the real world. Maybe having the federal government as your main customer screws you up for life, business-judgment-wise.
In that case, my gaze will shift toward Nardelli at Chrysler. And if he doesn't work out, then I imagine all three US automakers will wind up being run by Carlos Ghosn, somehow.
Good thing he isn't driving a Ford Explorer to DC because he might not make it. I had one of those clunkers and within two years, the engine died. Cost to fix it: $6,500. That tidy sum would buy a lot of Doritos and Twizzlers on the CEO's road trip.
He'd *better* be cutting his salary to $1 a year if he's going to drive to Washington. Think about, it people: at his normal salary, that drive would cost approximately $25,000 in time spent.
It would be cheaper to fly his corporate jet alone.
I would presume this drive is going to come *before* his salary cut, meaning yes, it's costing Ford more for him to drive than it is to fly. It may be good PR, but it is not good fiscal policy for your executives to be driving long distances to important meetings.
There's a reason we don't all take trains across the country anymore.
Also, has anyone actually done business travel for an important meeting or sales pitch?
Mindset and preparation are everything. I understand the PR implications of the private jets - that should be part of the cost/benefit - but seriously, a long-distance trip followed by an immensely important meeting should be as comfortable and relaxing as possible. Jumping out of a coach seat wedged between two 300 pounders or hopping out of a car after a drive on the Beltway are precursors that are not conducive to performance.
@ADismalScience: If your credit cards are maxed out and your mortgage is past due, do you take a limo when you go to hit your parents up for a loan? It would put you in a better mindset, but they're going to laugh in your face.
If the car execs had used their private plane time to come up with a business plan, they may not have been crucified for their mode of transport. Whoops.
I'm sorry to rant here, but there's no way that trip costs $29. $29 in gas maybe, but you have to add in the cost per mile of buying and maintaining the car. I'm not saying driving a hybrid is cost-ineffective, but I'm tired of people forking out $30,000 for a hybrid and then gloating about their "savings" (unless it was actually time for them to buy a new car). Anyway, this dude probably expensed the hybrid, but still. I would rather have seen him drive some battered family station wagon down to DC. Course, it's a ford, so I'm not sure those cars can even make it to "battered"...
Okay, Alan, the car is all packed. Your wet naps are in the center console, your peanuts and jack and coke are on that tray I set up for you, and your blanket and neckguard are under your seat. You ready to go?
"This time lets go in cars and no one will remember the last debacle!" Sad thing is they will do the song and dance and get the taxpayer money because our country is working for everyone but us.
9 billion for Ford's bridge loan, who is doing a very interesting thing and splitting from the general bailout request today as they ask to be bailed independently. They're healthier than GM or Chrysler, and their actions are essentially making the argument that Congress should save them and not the other two.
@ADismalScience: I am so glad the Chrysler/Cerberus deal I did last year was earned all up front and not over time. With that Cerberus money, how can they be in tough shape? Oh, shitty, redundant cars, UAW bending them over... that's why.
God, you touched that thing? Yeah. I hope they paid in cash too. The last time I had real exposure to automakers was during the bond downgrades in 2005, and that was when I gave up on Detroit forever.
@ADismalScience: I had a discussion yesterday w/a friend whose grandpa retired from Ford. She said for all the trouble that Ford is having, they've yet to take anything away from their retirees. I wrote on here a week or so ago how GM is canceling their retirees long term care policies and Medicare gap insurance, and their pensions are even at risk. For people who dedicated their whole lives to the company, and in our case are 83 and suffering from Alz, that should be criminal. So, yeah, if only one can be saved it seems like morally it should be Ford.
Of course, it bears repeating had they paid attn and tried to modernize and listened to those radical crazy environmentalists years ago they may not be in this mess to begin with. (not that that's the only problem/mistake they face, but it's a large piece of the puzzle)
@llamalash: I work for GM and can tell you that's not true at all. What they did was cancel post-65 health care coverage and provide a monthly pension stipend to cover at least part of the cost of insurance to supplement Medicare. Not a popular move, to be sure (the president of the company had to cancel his own dad's insurance), but not exactly what you are making it out to be. And how many talking heads have been urging, nay, screaming at GM to reduce its employment related costs? So they do, and they get bashed for it anyway. Heartless or incompetent and broke, which to choose?
Also, the pensions are currently overfunded and are not at risk. GM can't touch that money.
Not pursuing hybrids and plug-ins earlier was a mistake, and the company has admitted as much. But all of the hand-wringing over EV-1 conveniently forgets that the cars could not have been produced at break-even, let alone a profit at that time and the technology, frankly, sucked and wouldn't have been at all practical to guarantee under a warranty.
@pixiesticks: I certainly hope you're correct. However, having been on the phone w/GM telling us, as we've looked into the terms of his long-term health care ins (which, btw, is useless for Alz treatment, unless it is an end-stage nursing home care, not the typical assisted living/Alz care unit--but that's another discussion), we were told that insurance was being canceled in January. As well as the Medicare gap insurance. The individual (from GM) spoken with did not mention a stipend. In fact, their advice was for us to try to find a way to take advantage of the long-term health ins. while we could. That was about it. The pension we have not heard of beyond rumors, so here's hoping you're correct on that as well. I can tell you ours is not the only family of an elderly retired GM employee scared that it will be gone.
I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I'm living it day in and day out. I don't care who gets yelled out or made out to be the bad guy or incompetent by the talking heads. People who lived up to their end of the bargain w/GM, who are now over the age of 65, should be immune to any changes to their benefits or income. Of course, what should be and what is are not always the same. These individuals, on fixed incomes, should be protected.
He's best advised not to get his snacks at truck stops, where a number of largish guys might want to enter into dialogue about his compensation package and the reliability of his vehicles.
12/02/08
In other news, I think Ford would have done better if, like Standard Oil, it was run by a half-eaten breakfast.
12/02/08
Yes, he said something dumb, on TV, but ya' know, he probably thinks he's worth it given the superficial impossibility of the job and his subsequent struggles.
12/02/08
Although if he doesn't work out, I'm going to start suspecting that nobody from a defense-contracting-type business is qualified for executive power in the real world. Maybe having the federal government as your main customer screws you up for life, business-judgment-wise.
In that case, my gaze will shift toward Nardelli at Chrysler. And if he doesn't work out, then I imagine all three US automakers will wind up being run by Carlos Ghosn, somehow.
12/02/08
12/02/08
It would be cheaper to fly his corporate jet alone.
I would presume this drive is going to come *before* his salary cut, meaning yes, it's costing Ford more for him to drive than it is to fly. It may be good PR, but it is not good fiscal policy for your executives to be driving long distances to important meetings.
There's a reason we don't all take trains across the country anymore.
12/02/08
Mindset and preparation are everything. I understand the PR implications of the private jets - that should be part of the cost/benefit - but seriously, a long-distance trip followed by an immensely important meeting should be as comfortable and relaxing as possible. Jumping out of a coach seat wedged between two 300 pounders or hopping out of a car after a drive on the Beltway are precursors that are not conducive to performance.
12/02/08
12/02/08
You're approaching this from an economist mindset. You need to think like a pr flack on this one.
12/02/08
Do I? And if I do, what does that say about Americans and their reasoning abilities? Or DEMOCRACY?
12/02/08
If the car execs had used their private plane time to come up with a business plan, they may not have been crucified for their mode of transport. Whoops.
12/02/08
12/02/08
"I think I'm O.K. where I am"
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
I haven't really seen a gas station for like 6 months now though, so maybe the price of gas has returned to 1950s levels.
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
Who do you think benefits most from an automaker bailout?
Is it:
a.) CEO's of multinational corporations
b.) Middle-class and lower-class autoworkers
Answer honestly, I'm genuinely curious as to your response.
12/02/08
12/02/08
He'll stop for pizza! So pedestrian! Well, not pedestrian, because he's driving, but, uh...
[www.reuters.com]
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
That said, I am so anti-saving GM.
12/02/08
God, you touched that thing? Yeah. I hope they paid in cash too. The last time I had real exposure to automakers was during the bond downgrades in 2005, and that was when I gave up on Detroit forever.
12/02/08
Of course, it bears repeating had they paid attn and tried to modernize and listened to those radical crazy environmentalists years ago they may not be in this mess to begin with. (not that that's the only problem/mistake they face, but it's a large piece of the puzzle)
12/02/08
Also, the pensions are currently overfunded and are not at risk. GM can't touch that money.
Not pursuing hybrids and plug-ins earlier was a mistake, and the company has admitted as much. But all of the hand-wringing over EV-1 conveniently forgets that the cars could not have been produced at break-even, let alone a profit at that time and the technology, frankly, sucked and wouldn't have been at all practical to guarantee under a warranty.
Whew. Just sayin'
12/02/08
I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I'm living it day in and day out. I don't care who gets yelled out or made out to be the bad guy or incompetent by the talking heads. People who lived up to their end of the bargain w/GM, who are now over the age of 65, should be immune to any changes to their benefits or income. Of course, what should be and what is are not always the same. These individuals, on fixed incomes, should be protected.
12/02/08