Ford Motor Co. posted a 33% rise in December U.S. light-vehicle sales, ending a stellar year for the auto maker compared with its rivals. Ford recorded its first full-year market-share gain since 1995.More cash for clunkers?
Meanwhile, Chrysler Group LLC posted a 3.7% decline compared with a year earlier and said its full-year sales were the worst the auto maker had seen in 47 years.
The largest U.S. auto maker—General Motors Co.—posted a 5.7% decline, but said its process to sell down Pontiac and Saturn inventory was ahead of schedule and reported a 2.2% increase for the four brands GM will keep after its streamlining.
Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan said its U.S. sales rose 32% to 187,860 vehicles last month.
The results underscore how the auto makers have responded to the recession that began officially in December 2007 and led to the bankruptcy filings of Chrysler and GM.
Showing posts with label ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ford. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Ford and Toyota sell .... Chrysler and GM?
Turns out that Government Motors General Motors, is still struggling .... while Ford, which did not get any bailout money, is doing fine, says the WSJ:
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Yet again, reality stranger than the Onion's stuff!
The games that governments and corporations play, while we the consumers/taxpayers think we are getting a good deal! Oh well, nothing I can do but treat this news report (HT) as funnier than the Onion's news reports :-(Excerpt:
Why such a rigmarole, you ask?The vans leave Turkey on cargo ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics. Once they arrive in Baltimore, they are driven into a warehouse, where 65 workers from the shipping company's WWL Vehicle Services Americas Inc. convert them into commercial vehicles amid the blare of rock music and the whirring of industrial fans.
On a recent afternoon, a handful of vans passed through the warehouse unmolested as passenger wagons. But the vast majority were lined up to have windows pulled out, and they all had their rear seats removed.
In one lane, supervisor Robert Dowdy watched as two workers removed the rear side windows. They cut out the rubber seal with a special knife and popped out the glass using suction cups. The space is plugged with a metal panel that cures for 15 minutes before being tested outside for waterproofing.
At the start of that same lane, Mayso Lawrence unhooked a rear seat belt as easily as he would pop the top off a soda bottle. Using a drill, he quickly unscrewed six bolts to free the seats. Workers at the other end dump the seats into cardboard boxes, which are hoisted onto an open tractor-trailer and shipped to Ohio. Ford says the shredded seat fabric and foam become landfill cover, while the steel is processed for other uses.
"I never thought about why we take out the seats, but if that's what the customer wants, that's what we'll give them," Mr. Lawrence said.
With the seat removed, Mr. Lawrence puts in a new floor panel to cover the holes, toots the horn to signal he's finished, then gets to work on another van. The whole process takes him less than five minutes.
Rob Stevens, chief engineer for Ford's commercial vehicles, says the auto maker decided against shipping the seats back to Turkey for use in the next wave of vans for the U.S.
"We thought going through the recycling process was best," he said. "The steel is valuable."
The company's wiggle room comes from the process of defining a delivery van. Customs officials check a bunch of features to determine whether a vehicle's primary purpose might be to move people instead. Since cargo doesn't need seats with seat belts or to look out the window, those items are on the list. So Ford ships all its Transit Connects with both, calls them "wagons" instead of "commercial vans." Installing and removing unneeded seats and windows costs the company hundreds of dollars per van, but the import tax falls dramatically, to 2.5 percent, saving thousands.Kleenex time?
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Car crisis could well be repeated
Like most Americans, I am conflicted over how we ought to deal with the crisis with the three car manufacturers — Ford, General Motors and Chrysler.
This is not an abstract public policy issue for me by any means. After all, the vehicles that our family currently owns are from one of these manufacturers — a Ford Focus, a Saturn Vue and a Jeep Cherokee. We also have owned a Ford Taurus and a Saturn station-wagon. The only “un-American” vehicle we ever had was a Nissan Sentra.
It is not that we were implementing a “Buy American” policy at home. It just so happens that the vehicles we bought met our preferences and budget constraints.
Earlier today, when I took my Saturn Vue to the dealership for the regular oil change, I began to wonder whether the brand will even exist in the future. News reports suggest that General Motors is planning to sell the division, or merge it with another. It’s possible Saturn could be shuttered completely.
On the one hand, the public policy person in me prefers inefficient economic enterprises to fade away without government intervention. I think about Pan Am, which symbolized air travel when I was a kid. It has been almost two decades since Pan Am closed down when it could not survive in a highly competitive global travel industry. It is the law of the jungle that inefficient businesses lose out to efficient ones. In order to pre-empt a Pan Am-like story, the auto manufacturers should have avoided the strategic errors they made, especially during the cash-flush decade from the mid-1990s when sport utility vehicles and minivans delivered billions of profits.
On the other hand, I recognize that government actively intervenes in practically every aspect of our economy. Heck, even my home is partly underwritten by the government, which permits us to write off the interest paid on the mortgage loan. Thus, if many other industries can be subsidized or bailed out, well, why not help out Saturn and its loyal and committed employees?
Even as policymakers try to figure out the current crisis, we might want to understand a few longer-term trends as well. “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” was a holiday season movie two decades ago; these same American manufacturing industries listed in the title also have been in decline. Trains, for all purposes, have been nearly relegated to history. The automobile industry is in a pickle — some might argue that it has been in denial since the energy crisis in the 1970s.
And all is not well in the aviation industry either — both in the manufacturing of planes and in passenger transportation. Boeing was the undisputed champ in its field, perhaps even more powerfully so than the American “Big Three” ever were. Slowly but steadily, Boeing has been losing its market share to other manufacturers. Twenty years ago, Airbus had barely 16 percent of the market; now it is nearly on par with Boeing in terms of the value of aircraft delivered.
Meanwhile, Brazil and Canada have become active in the manufacture of short-haul jets. China is the latest entry into this field; last month, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China announced the sale of five of its ARJ21s to General Electric’s aircraft leasing division, with an option for 20 more. The ARJ21 and other larger CACC-manufactured jets are essentially China’s effort to crack the market dominated by Boeing and Airbus.
Over the last few years, we have come to realize that anything we do can be done cheaper in China. This means that, if we don’t watch out, here in the Pacific Northwest we could be worrying about Boeing 20 years from now, just as Americans are worrying about General Motors today.
Therefore, even as we try to mitigate the woes of the auto industry, and even as the manufacturers begin to articulate a long-term survival strategy, I hope we will learn one important lesson.
Global economic competition is real, and it will only get more intense in the future. If we don’t learn that lesson, another bottom line awaits us: History does repeat.
Published in the Register Guard Dec 16, 2008
This is not an abstract public policy issue for me by any means. After all, the vehicles that our family currently owns are from one of these manufacturers — a Ford Focus, a Saturn Vue and a Jeep Cherokee. We also have owned a Ford Taurus and a Saturn station-wagon. The only “un-American” vehicle we ever had was a Nissan Sentra.
It is not that we were implementing a “Buy American” policy at home. It just so happens that the vehicles we bought met our preferences and budget constraints.
Earlier today, when I took my Saturn Vue to the dealership for the regular oil change, I began to wonder whether the brand will even exist in the future. News reports suggest that General Motors is planning to sell the division, or merge it with another. It’s possible Saturn could be shuttered completely.
On the one hand, the public policy person in me prefers inefficient economic enterprises to fade away without government intervention. I think about Pan Am, which symbolized air travel when I was a kid. It has been almost two decades since Pan Am closed down when it could not survive in a highly competitive global travel industry. It is the law of the jungle that inefficient businesses lose out to efficient ones. In order to pre-empt a Pan Am-like story, the auto manufacturers should have avoided the strategic errors they made, especially during the cash-flush decade from the mid-1990s when sport utility vehicles and minivans delivered billions of profits.
On the other hand, I recognize that government actively intervenes in practically every aspect of our economy. Heck, even my home is partly underwritten by the government, which permits us to write off the interest paid on the mortgage loan. Thus, if many other industries can be subsidized or bailed out, well, why not help out Saturn and its loyal and committed employees?
Even as policymakers try to figure out the current crisis, we might want to understand a few longer-term trends as well. “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” was a holiday season movie two decades ago; these same American manufacturing industries listed in the title also have been in decline. Trains, for all purposes, have been nearly relegated to history. The automobile industry is in a pickle — some might argue that it has been in denial since the energy crisis in the 1970s.
And all is not well in the aviation industry either — both in the manufacturing of planes and in passenger transportation. Boeing was the undisputed champ in its field, perhaps even more powerfully so than the American “Big Three” ever were. Slowly but steadily, Boeing has been losing its market share to other manufacturers. Twenty years ago, Airbus had barely 16 percent of the market; now it is nearly on par with Boeing in terms of the value of aircraft delivered.
Meanwhile, Brazil and Canada have become active in the manufacture of short-haul jets. China is the latest entry into this field; last month, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China announced the sale of five of its ARJ21s to General Electric’s aircraft leasing division, with an option for 20 more. The ARJ21 and other larger CACC-manufactured jets are essentially China’s effort to crack the market dominated by Boeing and Airbus.
Over the last few years, we have come to realize that anything we do can be done cheaper in China. This means that, if we don’t watch out, here in the Pacific Northwest we could be worrying about Boeing 20 years from now, just as Americans are worrying about General Motors today.
Therefore, even as we try to mitigate the woes of the auto industry, and even as the manufacturers begin to articulate a long-term survival strategy, I hope we will learn one important lesson.
Global economic competition is real, and it will only get more intense in the future. If we don’t learn that lesson, another bottom line awaits us: History does repeat.
Published in the Register Guard Dec 16, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Bailout for the auto manufacturers
Like most Americans, I too am conflicted over how we ought to deal with the crisis with the three automobile manufacturers—Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler.
This is not an abstract public policy issue for me by any means. After all, the three vehicles that our family currently owns are from each one of these manufacturers—Ford Focus, Saturn Vue, and Jeep Cherokee. We have also owned a Ford Taurus and a Saturn station-wagon in the past. The only “non-American” vehicle we have ever had was a Nissan Sentra.
It is not that we were implementing a “buy American” policy at home. It just so happens that the vehicles we bought met our preferences and budget constraints. Earlier today, when I took my Saturn Vue to the dealership for the regular oil change, I began to wonder whether the brand will even exist anymore. News reports suggest that General Motors is planning to sell the division, or merge it with another division. Even worse is the possibility that Saturn might be completely shuttered down.
On the one hand, the public policy person in me prefers inefficient economic enterprises to fade away without government intervention. I think about PanAm, which symbolized air travel when I was a kid. It has been almost two decades since PanAm closed down when it could not survive in a highly competitive global travel industry. It is the law of the jungle, so to say, where inefficient businesses lose out to efficient ones. In order to preempt a PanAm-like story, the auto manufacturers should have been watchful, and could have avoided the strategic errors they made, especially during the cash-flush decade from the mid-1990s when SUVs and minivans delivered billions of profits.
But, on the other hand, I recognize that government actively intervenes in practically every aspect of our economy. Heck, even my home is partly underwritten by the government, which permits us to write-off the interest paid on the mortgage loan. Thus, if many other industries can be subsidized or bailed out, well, why not help out Saturn and its loyal and committed employees? It is a tough question that can be an easy one only for dogmatic ideologues.
Even as policymakers try to figure out the current auto industry crisis, we might want to understand a few longer term trends as well. “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” was a holiday season movie two decades ago; these same American manufacturing industries listed in the title have also been in decline. Trains, for all purposes, have been relegated to history. The automobile industry is in a pickle—some might argue that it has been in denial since the energy crisis in the 1970s.
And not everything is well with the aviation industry either—both in the manufacturing of planes, and in passenger transportation. Boeing was the undisputed champ in its field, perhaps even more powerfully than the American “Big Three” auto manufacturers ever were. Slowly but steadily Boeing has been losing its market share to other aircraft manufacturers. Twenty years ago, in 1988, Airbus had barely 16 percent of the market and now it is nearly on par with Boeing in terms of the value of aircrafts delivered.
Meanwhile, Brazil and Canada have become active in the manufacturing of short-haul jets. China is the latest entry into this—last month, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China announced the sale of five of its ARJ21s (Advanced Regional Jets for the 21st Century) to General Electric’s aircraft leasing division, with an option for 20 additional aircrafts. The ARJ21 and other larger jets to be manufactured by CACC by 2020 are essentially China’s effort to crack the aircraft market dominated by Boeing and Airbus.
Over the last few years, we have come to realize that anything we do can be done cheaper in China. This means that, if we don’t watch out, here in the Pacific Northwest we could be worrying about Boeing twenty years from now, similar to the worries over General Motors today.
Therefore, even as we try to mitigate the woes of the auto industry, and even as the manufacturers begin to articulate a long-term survival strategy, I hope we will learn one important lesson—global economic competition is real, and will only get more intense than ever before. If we don’t get that lesson, another bottom line awaits us: history does repeat.
This is not an abstract public policy issue for me by any means. After all, the three vehicles that our family currently owns are from each one of these manufacturers—Ford Focus, Saturn Vue, and Jeep Cherokee. We have also owned a Ford Taurus and a Saturn station-wagon in the past. The only “non-American” vehicle we have ever had was a Nissan Sentra.
It is not that we were implementing a “buy American” policy at home. It just so happens that the vehicles we bought met our preferences and budget constraints. Earlier today, when I took my Saturn Vue to the dealership for the regular oil change, I began to wonder whether the brand will even exist anymore. News reports suggest that General Motors is planning to sell the division, or merge it with another division. Even worse is the possibility that Saturn might be completely shuttered down.
On the one hand, the public policy person in me prefers inefficient economic enterprises to fade away without government intervention. I think about PanAm, which symbolized air travel when I was a kid. It has been almost two decades since PanAm closed down when it could not survive in a highly competitive global travel industry. It is the law of the jungle, so to say, where inefficient businesses lose out to efficient ones. In order to preempt a PanAm-like story, the auto manufacturers should have been watchful, and could have avoided the strategic errors they made, especially during the cash-flush decade from the mid-1990s when SUVs and minivans delivered billions of profits.
But, on the other hand, I recognize that government actively intervenes in practically every aspect of our economy. Heck, even my home is partly underwritten by the government, which permits us to write-off the interest paid on the mortgage loan. Thus, if many other industries can be subsidized or bailed out, well, why not help out Saturn and its loyal and committed employees? It is a tough question that can be an easy one only for dogmatic ideologues.
Even as policymakers try to figure out the current auto industry crisis, we might want to understand a few longer term trends as well. “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” was a holiday season movie two decades ago; these same American manufacturing industries listed in the title have also been in decline. Trains, for all purposes, have been relegated to history. The automobile industry is in a pickle—some might argue that it has been in denial since the energy crisis in the 1970s.
And not everything is well with the aviation industry either—both in the manufacturing of planes, and in passenger transportation. Boeing was the undisputed champ in its field, perhaps even more powerfully than the American “Big Three” auto manufacturers ever were. Slowly but steadily Boeing has been losing its market share to other aircraft manufacturers. Twenty years ago, in 1988, Airbus had barely 16 percent of the market and now it is nearly on par with Boeing in terms of the value of aircrafts delivered.
Meanwhile, Brazil and Canada have become active in the manufacturing of short-haul jets. China is the latest entry into this—last month, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China announced the sale of five of its ARJ21s (Advanced Regional Jets for the 21st Century) to General Electric’s aircraft leasing division, with an option for 20 additional aircrafts. The ARJ21 and other larger jets to be manufactured by CACC by 2020 are essentially China’s effort to crack the aircraft market dominated by Boeing and Airbus.
Over the last few years, we have come to realize that anything we do can be done cheaper in China. This means that, if we don’t watch out, here in the Pacific Northwest we could be worrying about Boeing twenty years from now, similar to the worries over General Motors today.
Therefore, even as we try to mitigate the woes of the auto industry, and even as the manufacturers begin to articulate a long-term survival strategy, I hope we will learn one important lesson—global economic competition is real, and will only get more intense than ever before. If we don’t get that lesson, another bottom line awaits us: history does repeat.
Monday, November 24, 2008
We have a vibrant auto industry
The US has one of the most vibrant, dynamic, and efficient automobile industries in the world. It produces several million cars, trucks, and SUVs per year, employing (in 2006) 402,800 Americans at an average salary of $63,358. That’s vehicle assembly alone; the rest of the supply chain employs even more people and generates more income. It’s an industry to be proud of. Its products are among the best in the world. Their names are Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Subaru.
A neat reminder from Peter Klein.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Let the auto companies fade out
This is a photo of one of the most expensive parking lots on the planet. Cars being brought in containers from Germany and other countries, off-loaded and parked in lots because there is no dealership that wants them, says the LA Times.
But, that is not even as fascinating as another one in that same story--the sharp drop in our leading exports through California: recycled cardboard and paper products.
This material typically goes to China, where it is used to make boxes for new electronics and other products that are sent back to the United States. But Chinese factories reacting to sharply falling demand are slowing production, so they need less cardboard. Tons of paper are piling up recycling businesses around the port, the detritus of economies on hold.
My students always find it hilarious that containers from China get here loaded with electronic gadgets, and all kinds of crap we don't need, and we send back in those containers scrap metal and paper as our exports. What is wrong with this picture, eh!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Debates on TV: deja vu all over again!
From "Hit & Run"
And speaking of Tuesday's debate, here's a YouTube clip of media theorist Marshall McLuhan appearing on the Today show in 1976 to comment on the debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Hosting the Today show? One Tom Brokaw, who seemed every bit as perplexed by complex thought and the English language as he does today (Edwin Newman, NBC's resident egghead, is also there). It's a really interesting clip, I think, especially because it shows how little has changed in the staging of political spectacle.In many ways, McLuhan's criticisms of the debate format are more relevant now than ever given that we live in a radically deconstructed media environment. Phoney-baloney pseudo-events such as the presidential debates are even more
self-evidently agitprop for, well, phoney-baloney pseudo-events. (Note: The technical difficulties that Brokaw, Newman, and McLuhan refer to resulted in a 27-minute delay during which moderater Harry Reasoner "vamped" while the candidates stood like wooden puppets at their podiums.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)