Volume sustainable, says Ford

[GT0336]

http://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/f...ays-ford-44015

Ford Australia boss says company can survive until 2016 at current production levels
Ford Australia chief Bob Graziano has reiterated the company's intention to maintain local production though to its scheduled October 2016 closure.

Speaking at this morning's launch of the 351kW-plus FPV GT F, Graziano stated that current production volumes at Broadmeadows were enough to see the company continue making the Falcon and Territory for the next two and half years.

So far this year Ford has sold just 3010 Falcon sedans (down 23 per cent), 1182 Falcon utes (down 37 per cent) and 3944 Territorys (down 33 per cent).

"[There are] No changes in the plans," Graziano told motoring.com.au.

"Freshening on both the Falcon and Territory are on track and will be [released] later this year," he stated.

Asked if current volumes were cause for concern, Graziano replied: "No".

He agreed current production volumes were "sustainable".

"If you go back and recall what we talked about with what we would do with transitioning the industry I'm very proud of what Ford Motor Company has been able to do," Graziano commented.

"Not only in terms of the supplier fair, what we've done with our suppliers, what we're doing with our employees with our jobs fair [but also] the investment we've made... with the government both state and federal and the jobs that's creating,"

"Everything we've said we'd do we've done," he stated.

[malazn mafia]

Why couldn't he have said beyond 2016.

[Bossxr8]

Doesn't say what will happen if the current volumes sink even further though, so it doesn't really answer the question.

But with the new model on the way it might be enough to keep the line running till then.

[xtremerus]

If you loss money with ever car produced, why loss more money by producing more cars?

That's maybe why Ford will just coast along to the closing date.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

If you loss money with ever car produced, why loss more money by producing more cars?

That's maybe why Ford will just coast along to the closing date.

+1 Defineately.

[dragons90]

They would be losing money based on money invested in the update but the more cars they sell the closer they are to breaking even, there would be no way they would still be open if it was costing more to build a car then they sell for.

[mik]

I think it would have to be something enormously bad for them to pull the pin early now,
and any funds to cover up until the promised shutdown time would be allowed for including some losses, to shut up early would not do a lot for the already big effort put in to leave on good terms with the public, even if some losses are accrued its no biggy , the company has kept going through years with some losses.

[Crazy Dazz]

Asked if current volumes were cause for concern, Graziano replied: "No".

So, he's finally admitting that they have deliberately sabotaged sales of Falcons?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Why couldn't he have said beyond 2016.

No new car can be sold in Australia after 1 November 2016 unless it is Euro V compliant. It's one of the reasons they have said "October 2016" everywhere as the end-date.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

If you loss money with ever car produced, why loss more money by producing more cars?

If you spend $500mil on R&D and produce no cars, you lose $500mil.

If you produce cars which themselves are at a modest profit excluding the R&D input, you might reduce the size of that $500mil loss.

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

If you loss money with ever car produced, why loss more money by producing more cars?

That's maybe why Ford will just coast along to the closing date.

They would be in the same situation as all the coal mines who are losing money. The coal mines signed long term contracts for rail and port facilities and still have to pay even if not used. Ford would have signed similar contracts with its suppliers. They would have to pay some hefty damages to get out of those contracts. From memory, Holden, once had to pay a supplier ( who took over some of its stamping operations ), over $50 million, just because they went from a two shift operation to one shift (ie the investment was made on basis of certain production level, and they were never going to get a return on investment at the lower production levels).

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by b0son

If you spend $500mil on R&D and produce no cars, you lose $500mil.

If you produce cars which themselves are at a modest profit excluding the R&D input, you might reduce the size of that $500mil loss.

So how does that work with Toyota.
It looses a couple of grand on every Camry built in Australia.
It is subsidised by other profitable sales in the Toyota range.
Ford and Holden don't have that.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by dragons90

They would be losing money based on money invested in the update but the more cars they sell the closer they are to breaking even, there would be no way they would still be open if it was costing more to build a car then they sell for.

THAT is why Ford and Holden are shutting down.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

No new car can be sold in Australia after 1 November 2016 unless it is Euro V compliant. It's one of the reasons they have said "October 2016" everywhere as the end-date.

Exactly right.

[csv8]

Why must we follow Europe?? Euro V compliance??? Is it really relevant for Australia???

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by csv8

Why must we follow Europe?? Euro V compliance??? Is it really relevant for Australia???

Ask the government, it was their idea. But its a better idea to use someone else's hard, expensive work than try and come up with our own emissions regs. Makes harmonising global vehicles for our market much easier and cheaper in theory for consumers.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by csv8

Why must we follow Europe?? Euro V compliance??? Is it really relevant for Australia???

LOL...yeah...climate change is a lot of hot air...