Bill Ford IS stepping down

In the next few mins, Alan Mulally from Boeing is going to be annouced as the new CEO. Bill Ford stays as a chairman.

L
I
B

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/ford/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ford Motor Co. Tuesday surprised the auto industry by tapping senior Boeing executive Alan Mulally as its new chief executive officer, succeeding current CEO Bill Ford, who will stay on as chairman.

Mulally, 61, who heads Boeing's commercial airplane unit, will become president and CEO of Ford immediately as the struggling automaker gets set to unveil a huge overhaul of its North American auto operations.

Is this good or bad?

I think it's good. Just because your name is on the building doesn't mean you're the best man for the job. The Fords should be more like overseers of their company as opposed to the ones calling the shots. Hire a professional to do it right.

Perhaps, but I would assume that professional should work in that industry. :shrug:

IIRC, he was one of the guys who helped Boeing turn around, which is nice. However, hes gotta be acclimated to the company, learn the plans, and probably formulate a new one. Thats probably gonna be in years not months.

This is even more pathetic because if given the key to the parts bin half the people on this board could put together several models that would fill the big gaps in the lineup and generate traffic.

Of course if you keep cutting away capacity, it wont matter if they get there head out of their ass product wise because they wont have any money or room, to build anything.

Is this good or bad?

Good.

Mullaly headed the 777 development group. The 777 has been an incredible success for Boeing, putting its closest competitor, the Airbus 340 to shame. I suppose FoMoCo is hoping he will do the same for it. Mullaly was passed over for the Boeing CEO position a while back, and was probably motivated to send out a few resumes.

CEO turnover has been high at Ford since the 1980's:


5 years- William Clay Ford Jr. — 2001-2006
2 years- Jacques Nasser — 1999-2001
5 years- Alex Trotman — 1993-1998
3 years- Harold “Red” Poling — 1990-1993
5 years- Donald Petersen — 1985-1990
6 years- Phillip Caldwell — 1979-1985
19 years- Henry Ford II — 1960-1979
42 years- Henry Ford — 1903-1945

It's appears that CEOs (except for Ford 1 and Ford 2) who attained their position at the end of an economic recession and/or during periods of economic expansions lasted longer then those CEO's who came in right before or during a recession.

Sometimes timing plays a key part of the success of failure of a CEO, but you can't feel too bad for any them since they all tend to have a "Golden Parachute" clause in their contract if for some reason they get pushed out of the plane @ 10,000 Ft ;)

I would expect the new Ford CEO Alan Mulally (ex-Boeing guy) will only last a few years at most since he's already familiar with planes and parachutes.

Is this good or bad?

BAD!!! :shock:

Although Rick Wagoner is essentially an accountant, he's been in the auto industry (General Motors in particular) his entire life. Everyone in upper GM management are car industry people.

Over at Chrysler, again, all run by car industry people.

Now Ford hires an aerospace executive to run the company, and is getting advice from a banker?

The last automotive company to hire it's top guns from outside the industry was GM in the 1990s with Ron Zarella and his group. All successful in their former areas, but none with an inkling of automobile experience.

At least GM was healthy when they took over & GM made money during their middle years at the company. But towards the end, GM was devoid of new products and had an over-reliance on trucks and SUVs that they are only just now coming out of.

Almost every auto executive who has commented on this has stated that you can't just plug anyone in to run a car company. It takes not just the ability to allocate resources, but also a feel for the market which moves in cycles, the realization that automobiles is an emotional business at the retail level, not a cerebrial one. Although product is most important, there's going to be times when the best move isn't to cut at one end, but spend to create something new. Dieter Zetche had an uphill battle doing this when he ran Chrysler, Rick Wagoner's had to fight to do this till recently, even Philip Cadwell & Don Peterson had to do this at Ford.

I've said it quite a few times. If you own Ford stock.......BAIL!

CEO turnover has been high at Ford since the 1980's:


5 years- William Clay Ford Jr. — 2001-2006
2 years- Jacques Nasser — 1999-2001
5 years- Alex Trotman — 1993-1998
3 years- Harold “Red” Poling — 1990-1993
5 years- Donald Petersen — 1985-1990
6 years- Phillip Caldwell — 1979-1985
19 years- Henry Ford II — 1960-1979
42 years- Henry Ford — 1903-1945

It's appears that CEOs (except for Ford 1 and Ford 2) who attained their position at the end of an economic recession and/or during periods of economic expansions lasted longer then those CEO's who came in right before or during a recession.

Doesn't tell the whole story. Not by a long shot.

Henry's 1 & 2 had their names on the building, and ran the place like it was their own kingdom..... which it was.

Henry 1 was replaced by Henry 2 when he was no longer capable of running the family business.

Henry 2 was FORCED to give up running the Ford Motor company when Ford was tethering on the edge of collasping. the board decided to give it to capable hands outside the family, Philip Caldwell. He ran the company till he reached mandatory retirement age.

After Cadwell saved Ford from oblivion through the hail-mary play of the new "jellybean" look, Don Peterson took the ball and made "constant improvements" part of Ford's quality push.

Peterson retired and handed the ball to Red Poling, who was already pushing retirement age. Poling handed off to Trotman, who was young enough to last awhile till he passed to Nasser.

Nasser should have been CEO for a very, very long time, but only lasted 2 years before Bill Ford realized only a family member could restore credibility after Firestone and all the people Nasser rubbed the wrong way that Ford needed to depend on.

Bill saw his role as temporary, even when he 1st took over, and he ended up stuck with it (last year he came out & said he was looking for someone else to take over).


I would expect the new Ford CEO Alan Mulally (ex-Boeing guy) will only last a few years at most since he's already familiar with planes and parachutes.

I agree, though for less clever reasons. :lol:

I think the guy will oversee the shrinking of Ford, the sell offs of it's divisions, and it's probable merger with some other maker or financier. By the time the dust settles, I expect that he would have made his share of gaffes because he's unfamiliar with the automobile market, and would be moved out or resigns.

I think the guy will oversee the shrinking of Ford, the sell offs of it's divisions, and it's probable merger with some other maker or financier. By the time the dust settles, I expect that he would have made his share of gaffes because he's unfamiliar with the automobile market, and would be moved out or resigns.

I agree 100%. I would expect that most of what you stated could happen within 3 years or less.

Then YipEEEEEEEE!!!
http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ARP/ARP123/gold_p_c.jpg

I've said it quite a few times. If you own Ford stock.......BAIL!

Well, no not yet. Ford is up almost 5% in afterhours trading on this news. Chances are that trend will continue tomorrow.

Well, no not yet. Ford is up almost 5% in afterhours trading on this news. Chances are that trend will continue tomorrow.

A stock can go up while the company itself goes down and vice versa. Investors might come to the conclusion that Ford is worth more being sold-off and disassembled and think the new CEO is the man who can do it since he has no emotional attachment to the Ford's family company and/or the car business in general.

So Ford as we know can go into the gutter while the stock price shoots for the moon.

Time will tell.

So Ford as we know can go into the gutter while the stock price shoots for the moon.

Time will tell.

Oh, absolutely. I made that previous post solely with short term financial gains in mind.

I've said it quite a few times. If you own Ford stock.......BAIL!


Anyone smart would have bailed long ago. At this point, someone might as well hold on and see if it rebounds like GM's stock did.

At this point, I don't think anyone has a chance of steering the ship. It doesn't seem like there is sufficient cash on hand to perform GM-style buyouts (and I remain unconvinced that such buyouts are a significant key to success), any work on new products won't hit showrooms for a few more years, and we're heading into an economic downturn. Ford's short-term survival - and I think GM's as well - hinges on factors outside of their control. I remain pessimistic, but that's the job of an engineer.

If the guy is from boeing I hope he sues Saab and takes their stupid born from jets line away. :p

If the guy is from boeing I hope he sues Saab and takes their stupid born from jets line away. :p
I actually like that slogan. Sounds cool. Now if they just bring out the Aero-X, it'd be complete. :D

Almost every auto executive who has commented on this has stated that you can't just plug anyone in to run a car company. It takes not just the ability to allocate resources, but also a feel for the market which moves in cycles, the realization that automobiles is an emotional business at the retail level, not a cerebrial one. Although product is most important, there's going to be times when the best move isn't to cut at one end, but spend to create something new.

Good point (as usual). Selling planes is probably 90% engineering, and 10% marketing, plus a whole lot of politics. Selling cars is at least 50% marketing, if not more.

But, on the other hand, I see there being a certain value in bringing in people who haven't been living their entire life in Detroit. The Big 3 is losing the "emotional business" (imports now outsell domestics at retail). And a lot of that I believe can ascribed to incestuous, land-locked nature of the US auto industry that plods along and does things the way they've always been done.

And if you're bringing in someone from the outside, aerospace is not a bad place to look -- there's not many other big union industrial concerns left in this country.

Ford stock is up a good amount today. Wall street likes decision

I think it says alot that bill had the gusto to step down...it shows that he will do anything to ensure the well being of the company business. I think it will turn the company around

I really and sincerly hope the optimistic posts of you guys is correct. I'm probally one of the most pro-domestic backer on this board. For me, I recognize that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are unique in the world of automobiles & I have a very strong belief in competition.

I don't see things as "I'm a GM only" or "I'm pro-Ford exclusively" or "I'm a die-hard Mopar fan". Whoever has the best car at the best price that matches what I'm looking for wins my affection and dollars. In my case, it's a well made, good handling, low to modest priced, rear wheel drive car. Preferably V8, but willing to deal with a V6 if it acts like a V8. No one on the planet can do this outside of Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

Ford has been my favorite in the past, simply because they had some incredible range of RWD cars, and somehow seemed to be able to afford & still make money on the things GM kept saying was too expensive, or impractical.

Now, GM and Ford have switch personalities and mindsets. It's Ford that has global resources they aren't using, an addiction to FWD chassis, a starved product line outside of trucks, a mindset that looks at vehicles as appliences, and a couple of guys at the top that come from outside the industry.

I can see where flowmotion is coming from. Bring in a new set of eyes from outside. That will help immensely in areas that don't involve cars. It will probally do wonders in restructuring Ford and making it more efficient. But Ford's problem is in that it's been killing off programs and getting rid of people for the last 4 years, but forgot about products.

Ford NEEDS a Bob Lutz or to get anyone who ran Chrysler last decade that Daimler forced out who retired or wasn't snatched up by GM. People who can make up for lost time by looking at what's in the global and local parts and chassis cabinet, and get new products to market at blazing speed on the cheap. I don't think an aerospace engineer and a sell-off specialist were hired to do that.


If the guy is from boeing I hope he sues Saab and takes their stupid born from jets line away. :p

The 2nd clever post in this thread! :lol:

Good point (as usual). Selling planes is probably 90% engineering, and 10% marketing, plus a whole lot of politics. Selling cars is at least 50% marketing, if not more.

But, on the other hand, I see there being a certain value in bringing in people who haven't been living their entire life in Detroit. The Big 3 is losing the "emotional business" (imports now outsell domestics at retail). And a lot of that I believe can ascribed to incestuous, land-locked nature of the US auto industry that plods along and does things the way they've always been done.

And if you're bringing in someone from the outside, aerospace is not a bad place to look -- there's not many other big union industrial concerns left in this country.

Well, since Mullaly won't be doing this single-handedly, I'm not worried about marketing and whatnot. The guy's strength was getting the company and all it's branches on the same wavelength. One of my former instructors has a son who works up in the higher reaches of Ford....they need this BADLY. Judging by what she has seen from internal e-mail, Ford is a madhouse right now. It wasn't any better in the heyday, either.

Otherwise, I agree, an outsider needed to get this job done. "Car industry" people got this mess started, they sure as hell aren't saving the day.

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/execprofiles/mulally.html


Throughout his career, Mulally has been recognized for his contributions and industry leadership, including:

Named one of "The Best Leaders of 2005" by BusinessWeek magazine for streamlining Boeing's production system and transforming the company's commercial airplanes product line.

Sounds like a need of Ford's these days.

Okay, pow-wow with his new coworkers, lay the hammer down on the current load of crap stinking up the halls of the FoMoCo headquarters and make this happen with a different set of sheetmetal. Party on.

Nowhere else to go but up anyway...

CEO turnover has been high at Ford since the 1980's:


5 years- William Clay Ford Jr. — 2001-2006
2 years- Jacques Nasser — 1999-2001
5 years- Alex Trotman — 1993-1998
3 years- Harold “Red” Poling — 1990-1993
5 years- Donald Petersen — 1985-1990
6 years- Phillip Caldwell — 1979-1985
19 years- Henry Ford II — 1960-1979
42 years- Henry Ford — 1903-1945


Who was CEO from 1945-1960

Who was CEO from 1945-1960


Henry Ford II


*Edit, I guess it depends where you look. Some say he was CEO from 1945-1960, while others say 1960-1979. He resigned as President in 1960 to become CEO.

Henry Ford II


*Edit, I guess it depends where you look. Some say he was CEO from 1945-1960, while others say 1960-1979. He resigned as President in 1960 to become CEO.

Ah, symantics.;)

Ah, symantics.;)

That would be the synthetic version of "semantics"?

That would be the synthetic version of "semantics"?

shlt. :lol:

It was wise of him to do this, he made a valiant attempt, but....it's over johnny. And, IIRC his replacement has done great things for Boeing. IMO it will be good for Ford, only time will tell.

I don't know what Mulally knows about the car biz, but he was the guy that sucessfully merged Boeing with MD. Programs, plants, cultures, management - as far as I can tell, he got them all under the same tent effectively.

So, why would Ford need a guy like this? Maybe to better integrate Ford, PAG, Mazda, Ford Australia? Or.....maybe to facilitate something between Ford and Renault/Nissan.

Here's a good article on Mulally - http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/sep2006/bw20060906_700068.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives

FORD'S DETOURS. Ford badly needs a manufacturing Mr. Fix-It. The company has the lowest utilization of its plants of any automaker, according to Harbour Consulting. Ford used only 79% of its capacity last year, compared with 90% for GM and 94% for Chrysler Group, while Toyota (TM ) ran at 106%. Ford also has the dubious distinction of being the least productive automaker in terms of man-hours per vehicle, an hour worse than GM and five hours worse than Nissan Motor. "Ford has not invested in, nor focused on, productivity gains in recent years to the same level as its competitors, and it has cost the company real money," says Ron Harbour. Here's one place where Mulally has an opportunity to make shareholders smile.

Mulally's turnaround experience will be critical at Ford. The rebound that he engineered at Boeing's commercial division came to an abrupt halt on September 11, 2001. After orders for new airplanes nosedived, he swung into action, closing several plants, and renegotiating delivery schedules for some 500 airplanes. As business recovered, his kept his unit in the black.

This turnaround experience is going to be critical at Ford, which has botched the restructuring that began under Bill Ford five years ago. The company has not acted swiftly enough to cut its head count and get its productivity up. Meanwhile, the restructuring blueprint keeps changing. Ford said in January that it would cut at least 25,000 jobs and close 14 plants in North America by 2012. Then Ford last month said it would cut fourth-quarter production by 21% due to falling demand. An announcement speeding up that schedule of closures is expected this month.

Interesting, gives a lot more detail about what we konw.

from reuters:

Ford's new CEO will recieve $2 million base salary, $7.5 million signing bonus, $11 million to offset Boeing compensation

That's mucho cash. :eek:

Not as much as working for Exxon.