This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:
I don't think that was vague or unclear in any way. All of those organizations need to change something to remain viable. The US Government is probably the least viable out of that group, unfortunately even though they are gigantic failures they aren't going anywhere.
looks like a volvo crossed with an audi, then they used a dodge ram truck for the hood.http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/jdesign/08Falcon25.jpg
Ford did not take the bailout.
Yet.
Please don't bring facts into this thread.
Hopefully they will not need it. It does seem that Ford is doing pretty well in terms of trying to turn it around and product development. They may be the only Big 3 company to make it.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm unsure whether this comment refers to my post or others in the thread. My point is that Ford is struggling and may ultimately need government assistance. As of yet, they haven't taken the bailout money, and they've made statements that they hope to not need it due to some bank loans they arranged a while back. But they've also expressly not closed the door on seeking bailout money at some point in the not so distant future. In fact, they've discussed what they would agree to if they ended up taking the money (i.e., complying with all conditions imposed, Ford CEO agreed that he would take only $1 a year in salary if they ended up taking the money, etc.).In light of their struggles, and the potential that Ford may need to seek bailout money in the near future, it just seemed like a bad idea to have 100 Ford employees hanging out at a luxury resort all wearing Ford nametags. As I stated, a company paid resort vacation may very well be justified. But I don't see the upside in advertising it to the world.
These were not Ford employees. This was a Senior Master Technician cruise. To become a senior master technician you need to have have taken over 300 hours of classroom training courses above and beyond the normal ASE certifications. There are also an additional 50+ web based courses that take 2-3 hours each. Once a technician aquires all of the courses he is a Master Technician. After 5 years of Master certification, they become Senior Masters. They are then awarded the three day cruise. Ford does pay for them and a guest. They are given shirts and gifts. It is a great program and one I hope to see continued.Many of the travel awards have been limited in the last two years and some other programs will see the axe as well.Having well trained technicians saves Ford money in the long run with less repeat repairs and better customer satisfaction.
You are damned if you do and damned if you do not.From those less informed about what is going on with the so called big 3, they may just have the same reaction as bigbottom. Perception is reality. It does not matter if Ford did or did not take money, there will be the perception of many who only have a passing understanding of the situation that they were handed free money from the government and now are spending it on vacation ala AIG. But if they went all hush hush like then there would likely be a story about how the company knew they ought not do it but were doing it anyway. Or kind of a 'what are you hiding' type of questions to be asked. I think the middle ground would have been to issue generic name tags. If people wore Ford shirts then they that is up to them. Try to tone down the normal brand splattering all over these type of events (I have gone to similar one's and usually the company's logo is everywhere- signs, knick knacks, shirts, etc) but at the same time, not try to make it look like that is what you are doing.
The folks I talked to said they were Ford employees.
Even if they worked for Ford dealerships instead, and Ford Motor Company was simply footing the bill for their vacations, I still don't see the upside for them to be wearing Ford nametags at a luxury resort. Do you?Here's a link to the group that was at the resort.
Right. I see no upside to having everyone wear Ford nametags around a luxury resort for four days. Ford signage was also visible throughout the resort. My only observation was that I would think they'd be just a little more discreet. All the Ford folks were a topic of conversation by the non-Ford folks at the resort. I wouldn't think that is the kind of publicity you'd be seeking. Ford also had a camera crew there filming all the arrivals.
The majority of dealership technicians are very proud to be associated with Ford. Ford was hosting the event and the nametags would be logo'd. The upside would be that these people came together from around the country and don't know each others names. The Ford logo would let them know they were part of the same group and let them into events. The only reason this is an issue is that AIG spents 20K/employee after taking 100B+ bailout. Ford has taken no money, the trips were already promised, and it made many techinicians very happy.Unfortunately, perceptions will prevent future events like this from occuring.The folks I talked to said they were Ford employees.Even if they worked for Ford dealerships instead, and Ford Motor Company was simply footing the bill for their vacations, I still don't see the upside for them to be wearing Ford nametags at a luxury resort. Do you?Here's a link to the group that was at the resort.
Right, perception counts. So whether you're spending $2,000 per or $20,000 per for a luxury vacation, you should be aware of that perception. They could have easily had nametags and signage with the "Professional Technician Society" logo, and none of us would have been the wiser. If and when Ford asks for bailout money, the fact that they're dropping cash on luxury vacations may be an issue for some. Why go out of your way to publicize it?The majority of dealership technicians are very proud to be associated with Ford. Ford was hosting the event and the nametags would be logo'd. The upside would be that these people came together from around the country and don't know each others names. The Ford logo would let them know they were part of the same group and let them into events. The only reason this is an issue is that AIG spents 20K/employee after taking 100B+ bailout. Ford has taken no money, the trips were already promised, and it made many techinicians very happy.Unfortunately, perceptions will prevent future events like this from occuring.The folks I talked to said they were Ford employees.Even if they worked for Ford dealerships instead, and Ford Motor Company was simply footing the bill for their vacations, I still don't see the upside for them to be wearing Ford nametags at a luxury resort. Do you?Here's a link to the group that was at the resort.
Where do you have the vehicle maintained?
Started out with Ford dealership. Made the mistake of using Firestone (for the second alternator replacement and the subsequent issues with two coils...which led to going to Sparks to resolve the coil issues). My biggest problem is I know virtually nothing about cars (not a man card requirement when mine was issued fortunately) so a lot of the problems stem from me having no idea what to do when something goes wrong with the vehicle.
Generally the dealership is going to use the best equipment for your vehicles. I did not see anything listed in TSB for your 03 Expedition to suggest the alternator needed to be replaced. There was a TSB for a wiring harness if the following symptoms occured:Intermittent Driveability Concerns
Ford doesn't need a bail out. They aren't even close to being in the situation that GM and Chrysler are in. But if the fed is going to be handing out money to GM and Chrysler, Ford ain't just gonna stand by and watch it's competition get free money from the fed while they get none.Right, perception counts. So whether you're spending $2,000 per or $20,000 per for a luxury vacation, you should be aware of that perception. They could have easily had nametags and signage with the "Professional Technician Society" logo, and none of us would have been the wiser. If and when Ford asks for bailout money, the fact that they're dropping cash on luxury vacations may be an issue for some. Why go out of your way to publicize it?The majority of dealership technicians are very proud to be associated with Ford. Ford was hosting the event and the nametags would be logo'd. The upside would be that these people came together from around the country and don't know each others names. The Ford logo would let them know they were part of the same group and let them into events. The only reason this is an issue is that AIG spents 20K/employee after taking 100B+ bailout. Ford has taken no money, the trips were already promised, and it made many techinicians very happy.Unfortunately, perceptions will prevent future events like this from occuring.The folks I talked to said they were Ford employees.Even if they worked for Ford dealerships instead, and Ford Motor Company was simply footing the bill for their vacations, I still don't see the upside for them to be wearing Ford nametags at a luxury resort. Do you?Here's a link to the group that was at the resort.
Did the Toyota CEO testify before Congress a month and a half ago asking for a line of credit from U.S. taxpayers? I don't understand why you're responding in such a snide matter to what I think was a pretty uncontroversial post. I acknowledged that the luxury resort vacation may very well be justified. I was simply commenting that it would have been a better PR move to be a little more discreet. Public perception in this climate matters. Mulally himself has acknowledged this:
Link
Did Ford? Why are you lumping in Ford and not Toyota? You are the one that keeps making the point of including a company that did not ask for money. How many times must your mistake be pointed out?
Yes.
Because the Ford CEO is the one who was seeking a line of credit from U.S. taxpayers and the Toyota CEO was not.
Ford did not take any money from the taxpayers.
Please quote my mistake.
I didn't say that they did. I stated that the Ford CEO was asking for a line of credit from the government.
"As of yet, they haven't taken the bailout money"
Again, please quote my mistake. I never said they took they bailout money. They have asked for a line of credit from the government, so taxpayer money is available if they need it.
Ford doesn't need it. Maybe if it gets to a point where they do need it, then they'll start cancelling reward vacations. Ford would only need it if the fed gave it to GM and Chrysler, because then Ford's competion would have an advantage over Ford. The Fed can't give it to two without screwing over the one. It's either all three or none.
Thank you very much for your research on this matter. You need to move to Omaha and my experience with Ford would be MUCH better. I do appreciate the time you took and it makes me feel like people really do care about the consumer.
The Flying Turtle said:
Example #12,362 of why the FFA kicks ###. Good people roaming around here.
Do you understand that you are comparing two completely different types of cars. The volt doesn't need gas at all. The volt will likely be under 35k and will go down after a couple of years.
Was going to post the same response, but the original post was so out of wack, I just decided to ignore it and let it pass.It's like saying, Hey, they are charging so much for the new iPhone, but I can get an older LG phone for $60.
Death Bytes said:
Death Bytes said:
You don't think giving GM/Chrysler a bailout would be unfair to Ford?
Ford wants them to get the bailout.
Now that you mention it, if I were Ford, I'd want them to get the bailout too. But not for the reasons the big 3 apologists would suggest.
What does that even mean?
It means I'd want them to get the bailout too. But not for the reasons the big 3 apologists would suggest.
Maybe you should stop taking guesses. As long as Toyota is not asking for money in any shape from the government (Ford still did ask for a credit line to tap in the future if needed) then Toyota can do whatever it wants in sending employees to resorts and have no fear of PR issues. Banks or American car makers on the other hand, ought to think through these type of things.Leroy Hoard said:
To be clear, Toyota is not taking money from the United States government.
A bailout to GM and Chrysler and not Ford would be totally fair. Ford is not in a position that it needs the cash. Unless the cash on hand position changes dramatically, we'll be OK. Ford was mostly there to show support for GM and Chrysler. Honda and Toyota want to see these US companies survive as well.If the economy tanks further than projected (SAAR of under 11.5 million) than a LOC for Ford might be neccessary. It would not be needed until the end of '09 at the earliest.
And hence, it is ok for them to do whatever they want when taking into consideration the PR ramifications here in the states. As long as US tax money is going to help American car companies then they need to be good stewards of that money or face the consequences. And to be clear, being a good steward of the money also means taking into consideration the appearances of what is happening with the money. If American car companies can not understand that then it tells us a whole lot about the disconnect that they have with the American consumer.
I agree with you that appearance is everything in these cases. I think companies were already supposed to be good stewards of their money for their stockholders, employees, and board of directors. If I find out Starbucks drops 200K on lapdances, I'm not going to be happy.Many of the domestic automakers have support from their government. Renault is owned by the French government, and they also own 40+% of Nissan. Germany, Japan, and Sweden support their manufacturers. Japan has enjoyed favorable trade terms for years. Their citizens don't look down on government investment in these companies.
