Last post on Nov 02, 2012 at 8:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
Ford, Automotive News
#93 of 101 Re: Indeed... [fintail]
Apr 18, 2011 (10:25 am)
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
I want people to know, That my family did not receive one penny from Ford Motor Company, and my son's case is dismissed. I spend my time writing these post to educate the consumer, and hopefully save some lives.
A few more points, I wish to make is that the passenger's family of the Lincoln car fire did settle with Ford Motor Company.
And the cruise control switch was found, and x-rayed by experts several times, and was found to have internally failed.
Also, I received a phone call the night the car fire happened from my son, saying "something smells wrong with the car, up or jump" and the phone went off.
2 hours later I heard a heavy knock on my door, that every mother dreads. Stating they had found my car , and there were two bodies in the car, one big ,one small and not recognizable. My child was dead, burned to death. My life will never be the same. But, Alan Mulally gets an award , gets millions for being so great.
But, Judge Bernard A. Friedman did not believe I had a case, and denied the case to be transferred back to Texas, where it was originally filed.
#94 of 101 Re: Update [paytonsmom]
Apr 18, 2011 (11:21 am)
How can you give a CEO an " A" when in AUGUST 3, 2006 -- Ford Motor Co. has cumulatively recalled 6.7 million vehicles since January 2005 that are equipped with a Texas Instruments speed control deactivation switch that has been linked to dozens of engine fires.
Allan Mullaly was not employed by Ford at that time.
If you want to blame Ford I have no problem with that. I have certainly had my issues with them though not at all to the degree you did, but Mulally is part of the solution.
Courts, meanwhile, are odd things. There is no logic to them and huge injustices are overlooked while at other times frivolous suits are rewarded.
Apr 18, 2011 (12:19 pm)
"frivolous suits are rewarded"
You can thank greedy trial lawyers and jurors that shouldn't be serving for that!
And, you're right. Mulally can't be blamed for something that happened when he wasn't there.
Were it not for his business sense, Ford may not exist today.
Nov 01, 2012 (5:42 am)
"Ford Motor Co. has named Mark Fields its new chief operating officer, company chairman Bill Ford Jr. and CEO Alan Mulally said Thursday in a conference call.
Fields, currently Ford's President of the Americas, will take over his new position effective Dec. 1. Mulally, currently CEO, will remain in that position until at least 2014."
Ford taps Fields as COO; Mulally remains CEO (Detroit News)
2014 sounds like a long way off, but if Mulally decides to leave on 1/1/14, then we're really jut looking at 13 months before the handoff.
Call it two years if he steps down at the end of 2014.
Sucession plans have been laid and Mulally is currently 67 (the new 57). Better to set something up now, like Apple did, and trust that the scheme and pending retirement won't be a drag on the stock value.
#97 of 101 Re: Two more years? [steve_]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Nov 01, 2012 (6:50 am)
The Detroit News has "fixed" their article to conform with Ford's press release, which says that Mulally will stay on as president and CEO "through at least 2014".
Mark Fields becomes COO and the obvious successor. The WSJ reports that "Ford officials stopped short of specifically naming Fields the next CEO, but both Mulally and Ford said they're rather see an internal candidate take over the top job than to hire someone from outside the company.
That was not the opinion in 2007 when Ford hired Mulally away from Boeing, a decision that at the time, many said was a risk because he was not an automotive expert."
#98 of 101 Re: Two more years? [steve_]
Nov 01, 2012 (4:11 pm)
The Fields choice is kind of interesting and there may be some differences of opinion because while he has been a key player under the Mulallay turnaround, he was also a key player during the disastrous previous management leadership. Also, as North American chief, he is sitting at the top while the quality is bombing. Probably just depends on whether he keeps himself in with the Ford family.
#99 of 101 Re: Two more years? [berri]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 02, 2012 (7:34 am)
I rather doubt Ford stockholders who bought at $18.97 in January 2011 are very pleased with today's stock prices.
#100 of 101 Re: Two more years? [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 02, 2012 (8:00 am)
I think there was some of that "irrational exuberance" initially when Ford avoided BK. Truth is, I think they would have been better off restructuring because they had to leverage the hell out of themselves to avoid BK, keep too much fixed cost and then get shafted by hardline UAW as a return for it. But it did keep the Ford family firmly in control with a minority financial holding through their special class of stock shares. Don't want to be totally negative though, because a lot of the Mulally changes are going to help them out for a long time as long as the Ford family can keep personalities, internal politics and the like out of it after he retires. They can't afford to go back to the old management and leadership model they had before Mulally's leadership.
#101 of 101 Re: Two more years? [berri]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 02, 2012 (8:41 am)
Without knowing all the ins and outs of what goes on at Ford behind closed doors, it seems to me, as a rank outsider, that Ford made a strategic error in trying to go into the software business. They really should have hired Silicon Valley to develop all their driver/car interfaces. Their systems haven't worked out too well.