"Jim Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

A big thank you to the Tribune for writing that...

It is exactly what I think.. and have thought. Anyone who has been privy
to a corporate culture knows there are things some CEO's are good at, and
some things they arent.

I dont believe that acquiring Jag, Volvo or even Aston-Martin was a bad
idea, it was just executed badly. And Nasser, unfortunately, was one of
those guys who went more for flash than substance.

Remember a couple decades ago, the Saab 'team-build' assembly concept was
getting all the news and kudos from the 'Quality Conscious' crowd. Well,
the quality was there... but the product languished because of the cost
of build. Question being how to keep that attitude while making the
build more economical.

Where that effort SHOULD be focussed is on the design and platform
implementation. It's quite possible to build a reliable car, and a
subsequent reputation for reliability if its DESIGN is done by a small
group with focus and purpose... let's face it, no one wants to produce a
troublesonme lemon. And the Mustang is a great example of that.
Since Ford stock and bond-rating is now in the dumper, now would be a
good time to re-dedicate the corporate mindset to the precepts of Old
Henry.

Sometimes I wonder, though, why I worry so much about Ford... given
almost all my family is directly affected by the fortunes of GM. I can
only suppose it's because I really like Fords. And partially because I
used to work at GM... thus am biased against their union worker attitudes
(though the same probably prevail at Ford plants). But it's not the
workers who are at fault for this in the long run.


--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!