Ford, United Auto Workers say they have tentative agreement on 4-year contract

[PREMiERdrum]

From the .PDF:

- 3rd Shift added to Chicago

- "continuation" of Expedition and Navigator, alongside SD, at Kentucky Truck

- 3rd shift added to Louisville for Escape and "exciting new product" (aka Lincoln Escape)

- 3rd shift added to MAP for Focus production

- $128M upgrade to Ohio Assembly for E-Series Motorhome and Cutaways.

[Deanh]

http://www.uaw.org/sites/default/files/FORD-Hourly%20FINAL%2010-4.pdf

 

The Small V6 will be installed at CEP1 and LEP.

nano engines?

[Biker16]

nano engines?

 

correction

Re: CEP1

 

The plant is awarded a new flexible small displacement engine assembly

line. 278 million

 

Is that the 1.0 and the 1.6?

[jpd80]

CEP1 gets new engine and third shift for Duratec V6 so hopefully, most of the 400 workers at CEP2 are given jobs at CEP1

[Biker16]

I think there's more of a question regarding D3: Will Ford keep the CUVs on D3, even as it migrates the cars to CD4? I have a strong suspicion that Ford will keep the big CUVs on D3; I think there's enough volume there to justify ongoing platform investment, as long as it's built in a facility in common with other vehicles.

 

I wonder if Ford can make a robust 7 passenger CUV on the same platform as the Fusion. I have my doubts; I think you would compromise so much in getting to that product that you may as well be working with a D3 modified to use some CD4 components (front suspension and engine cradle is what I'd SWAG).

 

D3 isn't space efficient. starting with a clean sheet design could do wonders for both mass and packaging.

 

platforms are dead. look for a common electrical architecture, suspension architecture, power-pack, and frontal structure, that is capable of being scaled up to meet the needs of a full sized mini-van and a large CUV. these areas are where most of the money will be spent. The Stamping dies are not the greatest cost of a new vehicle,

 

If they can afford to develop common frontal crush structures for the D-E sized cars, Ford's investments in flexible body shops and flexible press lines would allow for extensive variations in those classes of vehicles. simply develop the frontal crash structures,front and suspension modules designed to meet the anticipated dimensional and load specs(likely 3800-4800 lbs), anda allow for greater body in white variations dependent on volume and expected selling price, and run it the same plant in the same body shop, same paint shop, same chassis line, and same final/trim line.

 

the greatest expense of the variations are in the flexible Stamping and in the supplier network.

 

Either way D3/D4 will not meet the needs of Ford for much longer, it's too heavy in it's simplest form, the sedan, where Toyota's Avalon weighs 3500lbs the Taurus starts at 4000lbs

 

While the Honda Pilot AWD starts at 4400lbs the FWD Explorer Ecoboost I-4 starts at 4500lbs.

 

It simply appears to me that the base architecture of D3/D4 is too heavy, and the only thing that can cure it is replacement. this is not about money because Ford will Save money by moving to an Architecture more inline with one ford, that will allow for more variations of the architecture. it is a win win for Ford.

 

in closing CD4 can and should be expanded into an archtechture to underpin ford's D class cars, but not be completely beholden to the base CD4 architecture.

[sullynd]

I was thinking of rationalizing plants along the lines of platforms, CD4 (AAI), D3 (CAP), CD4S (OAP)

having Fusion, CD4 Taurus and Mustang at AAI, all D3s at Chicago and freeing up OAP for Edge and MKX.

 

I don't believe CAP is capable of flexing multiple platforms, and I can't imagine Explorer leaving D3 anytime soon (At least not in the time frame Taurus is expected to).

 

How's this?

 

CAP: Explorer, PI, PI-LWB (Flex/MkT), PIU, MkS/MkT (Or MkS-LWB)

AAI: Mustang, Fusion

OAC: Edge, MkX, Taurus (CD4-V6 LWB), MkZ (CD4-V6 SWB)

 

Essentially D3 becomes the new Panther, a platform with limited future, but who's longevity is a marketing benefit to fleet customers.

Edited October 8, 2011 by sullynd

[jpd80]

I don't believe CAP is capable of flexing multiple platforms, and I can't imagine Explorer leaving D3 anytime soon (At least not in the time frame Taurus is expected to).

 

How's this?

 

CAP: Explorer, PI, PI-LWB (Flex/MkT), PIU, MkS/MkT (Or MkS-LWB)

AAI: Mustang, Fusion

OAC: Edge, MkX, Taurus (CD4-V6 LWB), MkZ (CD4-V6 SWB)

 

Essentially D3 becomes the new Panther, a platform with limited future, but who's longevity is a marketing benefit to fleet customers.

Yes, that explains product positioning much better, no doubt Ford has their own plan and will be interesting to see what eventuates..

[jpd80]

Either way D3/D4 will not meet the needs of Ford for much longer, it's too heavy in it's simplest form, the sedan, where Toyota's Avalon weighs 3500lbs the Taurus starts at 4000lbs

 

While the Honda Pilot AWD starts at 4400lbs the FWD Explorer Ecoboost I-4 starts at 4500lbs.

 

It simply appears to me that the base architecture of D3/D4 is too heavy, and the only thing that can cure it is replacement. this is not about money because Ford will Save money by moving to an Architecture more inline with one ford, that will allow for more variations of the architecture. it is a win win for Ford.

 

in closing CD4 can and should be expanded into an archtechture to underpin ford's D class cars, but not be completely beholden to the base CD4 architecture.

Why not just run with CD4 Fusion, keep D3 Taurus for now and see what FoA decides to do with next Falcon.

The decision is due early next year and that could mean either a joint big car CD4 or RWD effort...

 

But knowing Ford, I bet they just copy GM and their Epsilon II plan for Malibu / Impala with Fusion / Taurus....

Edited October 8, 2011 by jpd80

[jpd80]

 

</h1>

<h1>UAW vice president starts tour to win worker support for Ford deal

LINK to Detroit Free Press Article

 

 

UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles says that once Ford's 41,000 hourly workers understand the details, they will ratify an agreement that provides new investments and jobs instead of larger raises.

 

Starting today at the Dearborn Truck Plant, Settles will meet with workers in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and Missouri.

 

"And in these times that we are in, I don't see how an intelligent person can make any other decision" than to ratify, Settles told the Free Press in an interview Thursday at the UAW's National Programs Center. "I am optimistic that it is going to pass."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"Maybe we could have ... asked for (Ford) not to invest and give everyone a $10-an-hour raise," Settles said, "but we'd put them out of business -- and that's not what we do."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Times have changed since 2009 when Ford workers rejected contract modifications, UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles said Thursday.

 

Back then, the UAW failed to get information out quickly enough to its members and didn't explain the agreement adequately, Settles said in an interview with the Free Press.

 

"You have to remember at that time in 2009, we went through many, many sets of negotiations," Settles said. "That was a different time -- that was unprecedented."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Still, many Ford workers, who haven't had a raise in seven years, are angry about the $26.5 million in total compensation paid to Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally and the company's decision to reinstate merit pay raises to salaried workers in 2010.

 

Settles said Thursday he is confident workers will vote in favor of the contract after he embarks on a nationwide tour of Ford plants and UAW locals.

 

"Intelligent people, given the appropriate information, will make the right decision," Settles said.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"I am not drinking Ford's Kool-Aid, but facts are facts," Settles said. "We know they have a lot of debt, even though they are making money, and even though they paid Mulally this astronomical amount of money."

 

 

 

Sounds like this could be a close vote.

I hope the rank and file get what they want in terms of future income, bonuses and job security.

[Pioneer]

maybe they are moving you from a 3 crew pattern to a 3 shift pattern.

 

3 crews IS 3 shifts.

 

There are only so many hours in a day.

 

3 crew - 120 hours of strsight time production a week.

3 shifts - 120 hours of straight time production a week.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Pioneer

[jpd80]

3 crews IS 3 shifts.

 

There are only so many hours in a day.

 

3 crew - 120 hours of strsight time production a week.

3 shifts - 120 hours of straight time production a week.

 

One thing often lost on three shifts is the opportunity to perform preventative maintenance.

What's your feeling on 2 x 10 hr shifts versus 3 x 8 hr shifts?

[ausrutherford]

Just an idea for maintenance for a 3 shift plant...have 1 of the shifts work a Tuesday to Saturday schedule so there are 4 days between breaks instead of 5 full days.

[Pioneer]

One thing often lost on three shifts is the opportunity to perform preventative maintenance.

 

That is why the 3 crew schedule is better.

 

What's your feeling on 2 x 10 hr shifts versus 3 x 8 hr shifts?

 

That is basically what the production schedule is on a 3 crew schedule. There is two hours between each production shift and Saturday night and Sunday morning for maintenance.

[jpd80]

That is why the 3 crew schedule is better.

 

 

 

That is basically what the production schedule is on a 3 crew schedule. There is two hours between each production shift and Saturday night and Sunday morning for maintenance.

OK. Thanks for sharing