Ford F-150 Plant Strike Averted; FCA Still Negotiating
With a fast-approaching union deadline from the United Auto Workers, Ford representatives and the UAW announced a contract settlement late Oct. 2, just 38 hours before workers at the Kansas City Assembly Plant in Missouri were set to go on strike.
According to The Detroit News, talks were stuck on issues of safety, seniority and manpower at the plant that makes the highly profitable, high-volume Ford F-150 pickup truck and Transit full-size van. Had an agreement not been found before the strike deadline, as many as 1,000 F-150s per day would have stopped rolling out of the production facility, potentially costing Ford millions of dollars in lost revenue and a weakened supply chain. F-Series pickups were one of the two top-selling pickup truck brands with year-over-year sales that were 15 percent higher in September.
UAW negotiations with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, on the other hand, are not going as well. Automotive News is reporting that 65 percent of its members turned down the most recent contract proposal. FCA has six assembly plants that could be shut down if an agreement is not reached soon, affecting the production of more than 35,000 vehicles per month. The Warren Truck Assembly Plant in Michigan makes both light-duty and heavy-duty Ram pickups and is subject to any potential strike. However, Ram's heavy-duty pickup production facility in Mexico would not be affected by a strike. Automotive News is reporting that FCA currently has a 90-day supply of pickups.
Cars.com images by Mark Williams
Comments
They caved in
You're right, I do not know why management always caves in and gives the union what they want,,,,,not good business
Ford caved in because they don't want to lose the sales crown. More concerned about Quanity over Quality.
Ford caved in.
GM & FCA will have to do the same.
What's that got to do with quality?
Quality??? Where'd that one come from????
Ford might need to slow down production of the all new aluminium F-150. A strike by the UAW at the KC plant could of helped Ford's bottom line.
Last month (Aug) Ford sold 71 000 F Series, this month (Sept) only 69 000. You would think all of the comments by the B&B on many sites Ford's F Series sales would of improved in Septemeber, even with one day less of selling.
I thought they are supposed to be really, really popular and in high demand.
Obiviously not as popular as some claim, even the Ford spin has again overstated the new aluminum F-150.
A month ago Ford had 50 000 F Series (not just aluminium F-150s) in it's inventory. Now it has 90 000 aluminium pickups. Boy, I like those supply and demand figures!
If the KC plant keeps on producing you'll be able to buy a shiny new aluminium F-150 for less than a used pickup.
But, alas, is Ford going to lose money out of this?
Ford (GM & FCA) can afford to pay the union workers $30/hr to push plastic fastener pins in the door panels as long as people are dumb enough to pay $50,000 + for pickups that are worth $20,000 in 5 years. It's the same reasons athlete's make millions of dollars. We the consumer are willing to pay for the product.
Good news for Ford. Production remains the single biggest most important issue for the aluminum F series and the march toward comparable production rates of the previous steel model is critical. Delays and setbacks regardless of their cause or nature cost Ford serious money. Especially in a good market.
Ford needs an "open enrollment" period for people who want to work. Set the start date for one year from now and which point the remaining union workers can take a hike
I don't really care for aluminum bodied trucks. More expensive and the tech will have to be re-proven all over again. However with as many trucks as Ford sells, everyone knows the rest of the industry will eventually move there. It will be a matter of time before every new truck buyer is forced to purchase an aluminum truck. Therefore these trucks will keep becoming more expensive. I would be the UAW is keeping this in mind with FCA. The UAW keeps wanting more and more and Ford, FCA and even GM will have to give in because in the market these days you cannot afford to stop production. Every truck sold is part of the "pie."
Ford and the new aluminum body will win out in the end contrary to what the out of country Al thinks. Then all the 2 companies will see this and then jump on board as they always do, remember, you always need a leader to try new things and give everyone else the chance to follow
Truck Crazy, see Jeff's post above mine
Bafo, Where do you come up with this stuff? In August 2015, Ford sold 3,000 more trucks than they did in August 2014. In September 2015 ford sold 10,000 more trucks than they did in September 2014. INCREASED BY 10,000 trucks in a MONTH. That increase is more than the total monthly sales of both Colorado and Canyon combined. And that increase is compared to last September, when you say Ford was selling so many trucks only because people were buying all the steel trucks before the aluminum model hit the lots. Now we see the aluminum is selling as fast as they can build them. They are even adding a new frame supplier to keep up with the higher than expected demand.
And the UAW wonder why Toyota and Nissan don't want the damn union.
American made and not being held hostage by the UAW. Sounds like a win win to me. I don't even blame the big 3 for Mexico plants, anything to get away from the UAW.
@ Nitro
Yeah I agree, look at the Rams 8 speed and 3D for starters. How soon before Ford follows?
@Montands, remember the 8 speed is old already, Ford is on the 10 speed now so not sure when Ram will follow
Oh my bad I didn't know you could purchase a Ford with a 10 speed already.
The UAW can afford to be aggressive with Ford's F150 plant because they know it is Ford's money maker. With that being said, we have seen the UAW reject a contract at FCA and they have NOT issued strike notice. They know FCA is floundering and a strike there would just play into FCA management's hands.
The irony of all the anti-aluminum posts is this: GM was set to release an aluminum truck well before Ford BUT the Financial Meltdown and GM bankruptcy killed that plan for them. GM would of been 1st to market a year or two before Ford.
@BAfO
Ignoring your flawed month-over-month comparison (auto sales are seasonal so only only year-over-year comparisons should be made), you fail to mention that all OEMs saw sales declines from 8/15 to 9/15. Chevy sold 1252 fewer Silverados, Ram declined 8712, GMC 1487 fewer Sierras, Toyota sold 2013 fewer Tundras, and Nissan moved 190 fewer Titans.
I heard that also Lou, but can't find anything to substantiate it. Got a link?
Lou_BC,
It isn't aluminium that is bad. Aluminium is a great material to use for motor vehicles.
Many commenters, including yourself seem to think it's the aluminium truck itself that I dislike.
It isn't. It isn't even Ford vehicles, it is Ford management and spin, and the many Ford fansters who comment. They are as bad as any of the other fansters.
I'm pointing out data and figures in which I'm basing my assumptions on.
I would also think the older steel F-150 was much more profitable than the current aluminium F-150.
It seems to me Ford must price it's aluminium trucks around the price of it's competitors with steel trucks to move them.
So, this has shown that the new aluminium F-150 is only deemed as competitive as a steel truck, not some wonder truck.
So, why move to aluminium? Why the spin? Many forget the move to aluminium is for CAFE reasons, which is FE, not load and tow.
The greatest benefit of the aluminium pickup isn't the vehicle itself, but from the production side of the business.
Even with production Ford has employed thousands more to produce the aluminium F-150. Somehow Ford will need to trim manpower. Trim costs, so it can sell at the same price as steel trucks with the same profit margins.
The average transaction price of a F Series, as opposed to the F-150 is/was around $42k, GMC $43k, Chev $41k and Ram $39k. Also, as you know Ford is more reliant on HDs for sales, so this alone will inflate the average transaction price of a vehicle.
So, what are the 1/2 ton average transaction prices as a comparison? I'd bet Ford is less than GM and Chev.
This doesn't bode well for Ford's bottom line.
Aluminium is great, but so is glass. Would you rather a icy cold beer out of an aluminium can or a glass bottle (stubbie)?
Yet, both are sold at the same prices at the liquor store. An aluminium beer can doesn't attract a higher transaction price. But it is lighter!
Both are designed and engineered to fulfill the same role. Pickups are the same.
Bafo,
You are correct, Most of the reason for aluminum was to better meet the EPA requirements, but you are missing the rest of the reason. By lightening the truck, they can continue to pack on more safety items, better technology, and still remain somewhat lighter.. THAT helps them have the best of both worlds... a better truck that can haul more, tow more, and still inch closer to EPA mandates. Having the only aluminum truck also enables them to have fun with marketing (like all brands with "first to market" items do).
School must be on holiday in Australia.
BAFO, you are only partially correct about the f150. While aluminum lowers weight that can help with FE, it also adds the numbers that Ford needs to stay on top of towing and payload. A lighter truck only really helps in the city driving and not much hwy. However it gets where Ford want to be as far as FE numbers go. But the biggest is to still stay higher towing and payload. FE is only a small part of advertising.
And who care what the profit margin is, that means nothing to help end user what Ford makes on each truck. It is their business. Bottom line is it priced where people want to buy it and buy it at record sales. If Ford wanted to really outsell everyone they would price it 10K under everyone else.
I do not believe for a minute that you don't dislike the F150. Every chance you get you have a negative comments on it. Even in a thread where the F150 is even brought up.
Load and tow aren't as big an issue as many seem to "beat up".
Most pickups 75% are a car/SUV alternative, hence the reason for Ram producing the improvement they had made with their 1500s.
The ones who use load/tow as a reason are forgetting that it is cheaper to engineer a strudier chassis/suspension/drivetrain for load/tow reasons.
Come up with a better reason for Ford to use aluminium, when Ford in fact initially spun the FE advantages of the aluminium pickup.
Once Ford was unable to use the FE path, they choose the load/tow path.
You guys talk of pickups as if they are prime movers and HDT trucks, where load tow is significant.
The pickup is just a car to most, not a truck and I don't see many people who go out and buy a Focus over a Corolla because it can carry and extra 40lbs.
Price is what moves vehicles, not load/tow. Most any pickup will do more than what 95% of the manufacturers provide in load/tow for the customer.
So, we now have 95% of the pickups that can and will meet the consumers wants and needs.
Load/tow is just spin to cover up poor decision making by Ford management, esp an ex Boeing guy for taking Ford down the aluminium path prematurely.
I have no idea what your even talking about Al. From the beginning Ford advertised better FE compared to previous F150 and higher towing and payload. That was at the very beginning. The 2.7L got them the FE numbers. Along with the lower weight to allow a higher gear ratio. But towing and payload has always been an advertising mark.
Again you are trying to be a Trojan horse here with the F150. It is very obvious that you dislike it. Anyways everyone is going to advertise how they want to help push sales. Look at Ram. They advertise highest tow ratings in their class. It is 10 lbs over the superduty. When they me that claim they show a 4 door dually that looks like a 4x4 when in fact it is only the 2nd 2 door dually. Ford is the only one with highest tow in a 4 door 4x4 dually truck.
lamo,
Go back to your Ford Koolaid.
The new F-150 is a nice truck, a very nice truck. I would never pay more than $8,000 under MSRP for any full size truck. Not a Ford, GM, Dodge or Toyota for that matter. GM people cry that Ford is "throwing cash on the hoods" to sell the "flop", yet GM offered $8,000 factory rebates (no dealer slashing like most big dealers do) in March of 2014 After the new GM's were only a few months old. This was after they raised the prices to help cover rebates that they knew were inevitable. Stop being hypocrites, buy the truck you like and be happy.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/10/14/gm-chevrolet-silverado-gmc-sierra-rebates-prices/2983109/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/02/why-general-motors-is-putting-the-2014-chevy-silve.aspx
lamo,
Go back to your Ford Koolaid.
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Oct 6, 2015 3:09:39 PM
exactly what I expected from you. you try to be big but can't or wont answer direct questions just your propaganda. Thank you come again.
LAMO,
I stated Ford overplayed, overstated, spun the FE advantage.
Nowhere have I stated the vehicle didn't have an improvement in FE.
It's just the improvement of 1mpg is not quite a staggering figure considering all of the ranting and raving by Ford.
Maybe you should really read and comprehend.
What next from you LAMO?
As I stated go back to your Ford Koolaid.
Tom - quite a while back one of the bloggers on this site had posted the link. GM actually had started work on an aluminum truck a year before Ford.
LAMO,
I stated Ford overplayed, overstated, spun the FE advantage.
Nowhere have I stated the vehicle didn't have an improvement in FE.
It's just the improvement of 1mpg is not quite a staggering figure considering all of the ranting and raving by Ford.
Maybe you should really read and comprehend.
What next from you LAMO?
As I stated go back to your Ford Koolaid.
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Oct 6, 2015 3:53:19 PM
You are on the Jack Daniels cool aid buddy. The 2.7L has a HWY 26 mpg 22 combined. 2014 had 23 hwy and 19 combined. I see a difference of 3 mpg. Maybe 3 means something different where you life.
It is funny you are on this FE kick when most buyers prove it is not a large concern. the mainstream engine for Ram is the 5.7L and not the more fuel efficient 3.6L. GM sells more 5.3L engines vs the more Fuel efficient 4.3L and Ford the 5.0L.
Lou_BC,
So, because GM researched an aluminium pickup justifies your position for Ford to use aluminium. Wow, I would of thought your logic was more advanced.
By the way. I do support aluminium as I've stated.
I'd also bet you will see Ram and GM use aluminum in a slightly different fashion than Ford.
A bed, doors, etc, not the body will be the wisest way to make a gradual change.
Or, the easiest way is to remove CAFE and allow a Mini Cooper S have a V8 if wanted.
Just regulate emissions by fuel volume, ie, 1 litre of fuel equals X emissions. Then tax the fuel to regulate fuel usage.
That would be fairer. So, if Ford wanted to they could make their V10 into an EcoBoost and fit it to a Focus, who would care?
Or, the Colorado/Canyon could have one of those supercharged 6.2s fitted. Just tax the fuel.
That's how we do it. How else can you have a midsize Commodore ute with a supercharged 6.2?
And, I bet our average FE per vehicle would be on par or even less than in the US.
Everyone then has the choice to buy and drive what they want if they can afford to fuel it up.
LAMO,
The 2.7 isn't an accurate measure, is it now?
So, what the advantage of a known measure, ie, the 3.5 EcoBoost?
Hmmm..........the Koolaid is running low.
Load and tow aren't as big an issue as many seem to "beat up".
Most pickups 75% are a car/SUV alternative, hence the reason for Ram producing the improvement they had made with their 1500s.
The ones who use load/tow as a reason are forgetting that it is cheaper to engineer a strudier chassis/suspension/drivetrain for load/tow reasons.
Come up with a better reason for Ford to use aluminium, when Ford in fact initially spun the FE advantages of the aluminium pickup.
Once Ford was unable to use the FE path, they choose the load/tow path.
You guys talk of pickups as if they are prime movers and HDT trucks, where load tow is significant.
The pickup is just a car to most, not a truck and I don't see many people who go out and buy a Focus over a Corolla because it can carry and extra 40lbs.
Price is what moves vehicles, not load/tow. Most any pickup will do more than what 95% of the manufacturers provide in load/tow for the customer.
So, we now have 95% of the pickups that can and will meet the consumers wants and needs.
Load/tow is just spin to cover up poor decision making by Ford management, esp an ex Boeing guy for taking Ford down the aluminium path prematurely.
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Oct 6, 2015 2:47:18 PM
You hit the nail on the head with this comment.
"Load and tow aren't as big an issue as many seem to "beat up".
Most pickups 75% are a car/SUV alternative, hence the reason for Ram producing the improvement they had made with their 1500s."
If thats the case then the 2.7 is more than capable of being compared. 40hp 45lbft is not enough to justify a difference when the truck is lighter and able to be the same. not all 3.5 eco are max tow. some can only tow what a 2.7 can. and that is the same. 2.7 doesnt make it a Mid size truck.
Dude!! Big Al is so full of garbage. It's hilarious to sit here and read his comments. I guarantee if I'd take the time to go back thro and read all his posts about his opinion of the new F150 there would be too many contradictions to count. At first he claimed that aluminum was no good for a pickup truck. Now he claims he has no problem with aluminum but that some how Ford didn't implement it in the right way to suit him.
LAMO,
The 2.7 isn't an accurate measure, is it now?
So, what the advantage of a known measure, ie, the 3.5 EcoBoost?
Hmmm..........the Koolaid is running low.
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Oct 6, 2015 5:48:59 PM
Your so full of it it is funny. First you disagree where ford says the 15 F150 is the most FE ever. You disagree as false or incorrect advertising. You see the government rated FE for the F150 with it being 3mpg more. But that not good enough because they changed powertrains. You are getting funnier and funnier every minute.
It's easy to search the used vehicles for sale, anybody can do it, but when I see a very high percentage of 2015's in a certain model in the used market, bells go off in my head. You know after 6 months of ownership its not because it a rental vehicle or off lease. It's simply because the owner didn't like it and is trading it in to get the highest resale value back.
I blind man can see it! When used car dealers have a lot of the same models on their lots that's the vehicle nobody likes.
Big Al from OZ
I fail to see where the buisness side matters from a truck buyers perspective? So your upset with Ford because in your mind they spun everything, you said you dont have anything against aluminum yet thats all you have complained about for months.....I'm confused
@Auntie Aluminum from Ooze - nope, just pointing out that GM was planning an aluminum pickup before Ford. The meltdown and bankruptcy postponed that plan.
You remind me of the dog in "Up". In this case substitute "squirrel" for "Ford" or "aluminum".
The worst thing about the big three is the UAW.
The comments to this entry are closed.