Working for $1/year is dumb. Congress should tell them that they can't do that -- let's be real. They ought to be paid at least as much as line workers make. $1 is a gimmick.

My other observation: the pie charts above divide the vehicles between: cars & crossovers / SUV, vans, trucks. Putting crossovers in the same category as cars shows Ford still has some full-of-it embedded. Watch as they replace their sales of pickups and large SUVs with crossovers, and not increase their sales of cars a whit.

Ugh.

Let's keep an open mind, you can't expect Ford to get rid of all the "full of it" in one move. It is certainly a step in the right direction. Now the government must institute a significant user tax on gasoline so that the oil companies can't undermine all progress by keeping the price of gas artificiallly low. If Bubba still wants to tear up the interstate with his monster truck, he should have to pay dearly for the priviledge.

Well, I think that with or without the Bailout money the pie graphs will look the same.

The Explorer will go into a "crossover" anyways, as was slated for 2010 already. That gets rid of 120,000 sales numbers a year in Truck/SUV category.

The only problem is that Ford makes their money from the Truck segment and is still set up to do so. The full-of-it goes really deep into that company as well as General Motors and Chrysler. These knuckleheads are not giving us anything that is new even with the bailout bucks.

Let them go thru bankruptcy come June/July and things will naturally fall into place. It will be a rough 2009/2010 but at least it wont be a more drawn-out process.

You see what they are doing for show when they now plan to drive the latest hybrid offerings from their own companies to Washington. And Alan's "no, I'm good where I am" pay statement that now is reduced to a buck.

Where does the "plan" for "going forward" as Ford put it state how they will pay back the Loan?

Their sales of Crossovers dived as well as their cars.

Just saying you have a percentage of your fleet one thing or another doesnt make you profitable. Look at Toyota. They are down 34% in sales in November.

Even with their "balanced portfolio."

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio

Don't get your panties in a bunch. They may not be falling on their swords, but neither are they flipping us off.

1. The Government asked for a plan that would show how the companies plan to get back to profitability -- not a plan that turns the entire product line into the car YOU want them to build.

2. A crossover is car-based, while SUV's are truck based. So they will lighten up to save fuel, cost, and sell more cars.

3. The $1 dollar figure is a PR gesture that says, Mea Culpa -- we get it, the public didn't like the images that private jets send, so we will give you the image you want and cover Congress so they can do this. By the way, Ford is saying they will only do this only IF they have to tap the line of credit, which they are claiming they do not think they will have to do. Perhaps they are right. In doing so, it also puts pressure on the other companies that do need the cash NOW.

While I think they should all live by the free market they expouse, I don't think we have to twist the knife. Give Ford credit for what they have done and are doing. I don't like lending them money, but if we can make loans available to car buyers to buy cars, then maybe the companies won't need it. Right now, few people can qualify for a loan to buy a car, fuel efficient or otherwise.

20 years to implement change? The market place won't give them that amount of time.

The President-Elect is on record stating he will help the auto companies; so, it a done deal. Only the details need be completed. Augments about bankruptcy is lost energy. The question is: When will it happen?

Ford's plan gives us good insight into how far behind the tech ball they really are and how far they are from the mass production of electric drive cars.

It will be interesting to see if GM and Chrysler have similar time lines. I suspect because they are all members of the AAM(their lobbying and coordinating alliance), the lines will be quite close.

Using the Tesla roadster as a model, Ford should be phasing over to BEVs by moving to aluminium chassis and carbonfiber panels, improving aerodynamics, reducing rolling resistance and down sizing and turbo-blowing their interim ICEs.

Put me on the record for this statement:

"WITH bailout money, the U.S. will see bankruptcy of one or more of the Domestic "Big 3" by June 30, 2009."

Its not lost energy to discuss their forced reorganization. Just displaced energy to a later date.

Ford just announced an hour ago they are upping F150 production by nearly 60,000 units for Q1 2009. I don't think they "get it" yet.

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio

So Ford says they are talking with the UAW about getting their costs down. Well I say lets keep talking about maybe giving them a loan. Ford should let us know when they get serious.

Drove by the Tesla dealer in Menlo Park this morning. Guess what -- it was dead empty and they had cars stacked out to the windows. 1/2 of them orange. If it is still there in March I will be shocked.

Ford comments about batteries are dead on. There are no batteries for EVs yet you can sell in 2,000,000 consumer priced cars a year and have a local mechanic fix. It ain't there folks and if you buy an electric you are rich and can stand years of problems and low range right now.

We need 5-10 years of work to get to any kind of useful, reliable, safe batteries then the cars happen. In the meantime Ford at least is laying some cards on the table and trying to look like they care about the future of cars in America.

Remains to be seen how it all plays out -- 2012 would be a good time to check back. In Silicon Valley the whispers are 2011 before retail sales get back to where they were last summer - long years ahead and everybody will have to lay their cards on the table along the way.

Why buy a Ford today when I can get the car I really want, a BEV, in 3 years?

J, you said:

"Ford comments about batteries are dead on. There are no batteries for EVs yet you can sell in 2,000,000 consumer priced cars a year and have a local mechanic fix. It ain't there folks and if you buy an electric you are rich and can stand years of problems and low range right now.

We need 5-10 years of work to get to any kind of useful, reliable, safe batteries then the cars happen. In the meantime Ford at least is laying some cards on the table and trying to look like they care about the future of cars in America."

Nonsense. There's A123Systems, there's Altairnano Technologies, there's Axion Power International, Inc. These products are ready NOW.

I see Ford's plans include an all-electric battery powered van in 2010. Will this be in partnership with Smith Electric Vehicles?

The two companies are known to have worked together on chassis design details for the Smith Ampere - an example of which was displayed on the Ford stand at last April's CV-2008 commercial vehicles show at the NEC near Birmingham, UK.

Smith's own stand included the Faraday - a truck based on the Ford F-650. In the UK, Ford dealerships are instructed to direct all enquiries about EV purchases to Smith, at http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com

The Smith Edison range (van, truck, minibus) is based on the european Ford Transit.

Smith already have around 400 highway-capable all-electric trucks on London streets.

This goes to reinforce my belief that Ford should be saved. While there's a lot wrong here, it does show that they're trying, and have a reasonable plan. Yes, it might be too little too late, but at least they're trying. What is GM offering? The Volt will save us. Ummm, no, it might help, but they're a badly run company, the dependency on a single model to save them proves it. Chrysler... ummmm, what plan do they have? And why do they deserve a third chance (we bailed them out about 30 years ago remember)?

Barron's has an interesting article about what the US makers need to do ( http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122792686803266225.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_left&page=1 ), it would likely help them to significantly cut down on their brands. Look at Toyota, they've three, Lexus (luxury), Toyota (everything), Scion (youth), and that last one is really just an experiment, i doubt you'll see it around in ten years, it may even be gone within five. Ford is a good example, what's the point of Mercury? Lincoln is the luxury arm, Ford everything else, what does Mercury even sell any more? Narrowing down to two brands and having dealers sell both would allow them to trim their dealership numbers rapidly.

Both GM and Ford have a world wide product line to tap, only Ford though has turned to it. While its only a band aid, its the best plan for the moment, and Ford has shown that they see the future, even ifn they are dragging their feet about going there. I do wonder what they'll do about the Crown Vic, a staple of taxi and police forces everywhere. I know there was some talk of bringing in an Australian rear wheel drive model that includes a cross over and all wheel drive to the line up, which would appeal to these users and a small segment of the general public. If its unibody, the weight savings would help them meet their goals while continuing to serve a small but important niche.

Last, i must laugh at Chrysler, anyone catch their reaction to the crash tests? Yeah, completely clueless.

It seems that the only place where Ford is stating a number is on the $9.0 B bail out they want.

The Ford plan is extremely vague, without a single accountable goal, is a real farce and should be quickly rejected.

The bad boys are saying that they will be good if given $9.0 B. Let's hope that the new administration won't fall for that.

Fixed goals should be given, reached and verified every 3 months to get the next installment.

A $9 B blank cheque does not make sense.

I think what gives Ford a fighting chance is the fact they have pretty much in place a new product line that will not only be highly desirable from a "green" point of view, but also desirable for enthusiast drivers.

Take for example the new Ford Fiesta that just started sales in Europe--it has been lauded for its very good handling and interior roominess. When the Fiesta arrives in the USA by the end of 2009, the car will sport the advanced Powershift dual-clutch transmission, which means the Fiesta could get over 40 miles per US gallon fuel economy on the highway test based on the quite stringent EPA 2008 standard. I expect the Fiesta to be a hot seller, since Ford will likely offer the five-door hatchback, four-door sedan and possibly a "tall wagon" version called B-Max for American buyers. Of course, Ford will likely also offer a sportier performance version, probably powered by a turbocharged 1.6-liter I-4 engine rated at around 160 bhp.

I dont like ford as a general rule, but Mullaly came from boeing in the last two years and has actually done many of the same cost cutting moves he was doing there. they still have alot of the $28 billion in loan money they got in 2006 by mortgaging everything in the company so they wont go bankrupt. but...."Ford is presently engaged in discussions with the UAW with the objective to further reduce its cost structure and eliminate the remaining labor cost gap that exists between Ford and the transplants."
they have a 40% labor cost gap, the UAw isnt going to change that for existing workers, the two tier agreement they already have doesnt kick in until 2011 and then only for new workers, and they still owe $8 billion to the union fund by 2010. So they wont get out of the rut they are in no matter how much they expect sales to pick up.
its time to let Gm go bankrupt, its not going to be the worst case scorched earth scene that they keep pushing, thats just their dishonest car salesman ( are there any other types?) high pressure sales pitch. They owe $45 billion now plus another $10 billion to the union fund in 2010.their management wants to renegotiate loans again and cut 30,000 workers, neither action corrects the problem nor makes them live more than another year. time to let Gm go under, maybe exxon would buy them, or china?

So, if Ford still has $28B in line-of-credit debt that must be repaid, and wants $7B loan...thats $35B that has to be repaid sometime with interest, say $2B in that.

Can Ford repay $37,000,000,000 in 2-3 years? Thats over 1.2 B per month! Where is this money coming from? EcoBoost engines? F-9millions? Expeditions?? hmmm....

No manufacturer is mentioning how on earth they will pay back this money.

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio

Garald,

You are correct there are batteries all around. I use Saft cells in a military application for transportation.

They are still in early adopter phase -- and it you take something as simple and safe as CD players that took 3 or 4 years to go from first models to wide use and affordable prices in the late 1980s there are years of high prices, maturity development, litigation, and infrastructure development to support EVs ahead.

I stand by my words that there are no affordable batteries for the consumer to use at this time and that is years away.

Even today the Prius is primium priced with older NiMH batteries and last I heard Toyota was predicting Lion for 2010.

No significant innovation in BEV will come from the major car companies. Why, because the BEV is a completely disruptive technology. The car companies are based on marketing in house powerplant technology. With BEV, the main component (battery, electromotor) will come from other sources.

Ford repossessed my son's vehicle. They told him to give them 7 days to review the required bank/tax statements to consider allowing him to get the vehicle back. Of course he would have to pay the back payments and several hundred dollars in fees. He then went to collect his personal belongings from the glove box, but was not allowed to do this unless he paid $40. On the 7th day, he had not been contacted so he called Ford. He was told the vehicle was put up for sale 3 days after the first conversation.

The Bible talks about a man who was brought before the King for a $10 million debt he owed. The man was not able to pay, but begged the King for more time. The King had pity, cancelled the debt, and sent the man on his way. The forgiven man then saw another man who owed him $20. He threatened to kill the man if he did not immediately pay the entire debt. The man begged for more time, but the forgiven man refused, and had the man thrown into prison.

Should we forgive the enormous debt FORD owes while allowing them to gouge customers who owe very little in comparision?

P.S. Working for $1 a year simply means no personal salary above what is already received from owing the company.

Why should taxpayers contribute one cent to past, present and future pensions and premium healthcare for autoworkers? It is not right. Either the same pension benefits go to all citizens/taxpayers or the auto-workers get squat!.

Tricia,

You hit the nail on the head. Excellent biblical example.

But be of good cheer:

"Cancelled debt" is coming to America: 2009. It will be the only--and I mean ONLY--option to get out of 'what' we're in right now. But it has to get much, much worse first.

Nate H.
Dover, Ohio

Gm pension benefits cost them about $34,000 for each employee and each retiree. every year. most of america barely even makes that much money much less have a pension benefits plan that doesnt require them to pay some percentage of that. I dont like the idea of a depression, but I sure as hell like supporting royalty like that even less.

After pissing away millions of Dollars from the profit of American car buyers , moving their production facilities out of our country,these corporate criminals deserve a hanging ,not add insult to injury and ripping off the taxpayer billions of dollars.
Pelosi(and your tribe),are you listening????

Pension benefits were not given out of the goodness of their heart,the corporations got huge tax advantages for it,plus they were using moneys that were part of the workers wages,that were withheld so they,the corp could mismanage the investor-owned corporation more effectively,without oversight and prudence.
The least deserving at the top,that are stealing the corporation and the customers blind are even getting a pension.
These wild west economics MUST be stopped AT ONCE!!