•

Ford lays off 700 who were building electric version of F-150 | CNN Business

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/business/ford-f150-lightning-layoffs/index.html

Ford is laying off about 700 workers who build the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck, and unlike other recent layoffs this one has nothing to do with the ongoing strike by the United Auto Workers union.

Ford lays off 700 who were building electric version of F-150 | CNN Business::Ford is laying off about 700 workers who build the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck, and unlike other recent layoffs this one has nothing to do with the ongoing strike by the United Auto Workers union.

58 comments

AlecSadler

•

Wow. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Ford's future is going to be a struggle.

You can't simultaneously be late to a growing market, back out of a growing market, and refuse to invest in a growing market and hope to succeed...can you?

great_meh

•

Well you can if you trust the government to bail you out .

Cornpop

•

Ford never took a bailout

AnarchoDakosaurus

•

A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened. In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them.

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/

And ford took more money from Biden's green energy plan. Ford is definitely guilty as fuck as slurping up government surplus and firing workers the second they stop making them a profit.

stealthnerd

•

I love how the OP said Ford never took a bailout, you reply confirming that, and OP gets downvoted into oblivion.

TheRealKuni

•

I love how the OP said Ford never took a bailout, you reply confirming that, and OP gets downvoted into oblivion.

Welcome to Lemmy. I swear this place is worse than Reddit at reading comprehension and mob-mentality downvoting.

bitwaba

•

I don't really know what's going on so I'm just gonna downvote everyone just in case.

Unforeseen

•

I've found the same, but that it really depends on the topic.

surewhynotlem

•

There were more than ten words. I didn't read it either.

CmdrShepard

•

They didn't confirm that Ford didn't receive a bailout just that Ford didn't participate in TARP. Ford took a $7B government loan in 2009 and didn't even finish repaying it until last year. GM took their $8B bailout in 2009 and repaid it all in 2010.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2020/07/29/ford-government-loan-department-energy-debt/5526413002/

I love all the high-horse "downvoting, mob-mentality, poor reading comprehension" comments in this thread when none of these people bothered to do more than read a single comment and click one link before assuming they had a full understanding of the facts.

Kedly

•

15 downvotes is downvoted to oblivion?

AA5B

•

Right there is the difference between Lemmy and Reddit!

Lemmy: 15 downvotes to oblivion

Reddit: Hold my beer!

Kedly

•

Yeah, I guess there is a pretty significant population difference between the two. Sorry, I'm a new convert from Reddit xD

Nollij

•

Ford never took that bailout

AnarchoDakosaurus

•

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Ford's future is going to be a struggle.

They completely killed making any cars smaller then Trucks or SUV's in North America and I really hope it comes back to fuck them.

I'm not crying that they won't make Ford Focuses anymore or whatever, but pretty much only people left to buy affordable, small cars from anymore is the Japanese and Koreans.

Good riddance to Ford. They long outlived their usefulness.

psycho_driver

•

but pretty much only people left to buy affordable, small cars from anymore is the Japanese and Koreans.

A big reason for that was that American car makers never figured out how to make decent small cars and were getting murdered by their Japanese and Korean competition.

trash80

•

Permanently Deleted

psycho_driver

•

Funny you should mention those two. In the US market they both shipped with a quite defective Ford-developed DCT that would rarely last 50,000 miles before failing. I do not believe whatever the problem is with these transmissions are fixable because the replacements will also fail short of 50,000 miles. I actually own two Fiesta's, one with the 1.0l ecoboom which is currently dead at 84,000 miles due to the plastic used within the engine getting brittle and failing and causing it to catastrophically overheat very quickly (just about all of these 1.0s will fail between 75,000 and 85,000 from what I've seen). I also have a i4/manual version which is about to hit 200,000 miles and runs great. The key in the US market is to get a 5 speed version if you want mostly trouble free ownership. The Fiesta is almost the perfect small car that was mostly ruined due to cost cutting in areas that there shouldn't be any cost cutting happening.

trash80

•

Permanently Deleted

SmoothIsFast

•

No its because they have less safety and ecological regulations on trucks, as SUVs use truck platforms they no longer have to abide by the same set of regulations and production becomes cheaper. It's always been motivated by profit....

hardcoreufo

•

You should blame the EPA for that as well. Their policies incentivize the making of large ass trucks. So the US car manufacturers push them and abandon small cars.

SmoothIsFast

•

Trucks had regulations for a purpose as they were deemed a utility vehicle for doing a certain set of jobs. Capitalism seeking profit noticed if they can have consumers like SUVs they can use the same regulations as trucks to save cost and increase profit. This is not an uncommon tactic in Capitalism and we have no laws saying it's illegal, you would need congress to give the EPA the ability to go after car companies skirting regulations by manipulating public perceptions to favor suvs and considering how in bed congress is with these big companies that's never gonna happen in the current political landscape we have, not to mention how do you prove that in court. The problem is we as a people have stopped getting involved and slowly watched as are rights writhered away all because we got seduced by convience.

trash80

•

Permanently Deleted

CmdrShepard

•

All the domestic manufacturers had to cut their losses on

ours

•

Ford? More like the whole Western auto industry.

partial_accumen

•

Ford? More like the whole Western auto industry.

Politics about its man-child leader aside, Tesla (which is part of the Western auto industry) is extremely successful on both production ramping, with high margins, with strong sales. In 2023 the Tesla model Y is the best selling car in the world displacing ~20 year holder of that title, the Toyota Camry.

Tb0n3

•

They do pretty gangbusters in the pickup market. They also have a hybrid power-train available. If you look at the current year list of Q1 sales they're top of the heap.

Honestly if you want to use the vehicle for hauling it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The only reason Teslas and other cars do so well it by being a slippery and efficient as possible so they can get 100+MPGe. It doesn't work so well with a trailer on, or the shape required to carry things in the back.

geogle

•

I don't understand the sales argument. It's my understanding that there is still a huge waiting list for these vehicles. It's not like they're sitting on lots.. or are they?

partial_accumen

•

It’s my understanding that there is still a huge waiting list for these vehicles. It’s not like they’re sitting on lots… or are they?

From what I've seen from folks that follow new car/truck sales it goes like this:

Ford announces great product for reasonable price of lets say $45k
Lots of folks sign up on waiting lists at the advertised price.
Because of the dealership model, Ford has to sell/ship the product to a dealership.
Dealership marks up the product $10k-$40k as a "Special Market Adjustment" then installs lots of non-optional options which raises the price by another $10k-$20k.
Buyer on the waiting list comes in to pick up their order and sees what they were expecting to pay $45k now would cost them $85k.
Buyer balks and dealership says "take it or leave it, we'll sell it to someone else".
Buyer leaves.
Buyer cancels their spot on the wait list.
Dealership tries to sell it on the lot at $85k.
Dealership does this to dozens of these vehicles.
Dealership lot is full of these highly desired vehicles now NOT desirable because of the increased expense.
Dealership cancels orders for additional units.
Ford concludes "No one wants to buyers want our product even at $45k. We need to sell more gas vehicles. Thats what the buyers are telling us".
Ford lays off workers making the product that was formerly in high demand.

AA5B

•

Yes, but Ford is also culpable. My understanding is they mostly made the higher end models to try to get profitable more quickly. Great, but no one can afford them. Part of the expected demand was for models people could afford to buy

“We had all these people on the waiting list for a $45k truck and we don’t understand why they’re not buying the $85k truck we’re mostly building”

Wogi

•

It also doesn't have to be this way. Other auto manufacturers dictate the terms to the dealerships, specifically with the market adjustments. They ensure the people who want their cars can afford their cars, regardless of what the market is doing.

Ford isn't doing this and their cars are sitting on the lot because no one can afford them.

psycho_driver

•

Could be the striking workers have disrupted component flow enough that these workers were running out of things to do.

HurlingDurling

•

Ford lays off 700 who were building electric version of F-150 | CNN Business::Ford is laying off about 700 workers who build the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck, and unlike other recent layoffs this one has nothing to do with the ongoing strike by the United Auto Workers union.

Not due to the strike, apparently.

Hildegarde

•

Would a company ever admit to laying off workers because of a strike? Seems like a sure fire way to lose in court.

doublenut

•

They've already said they would fire around 1000 of those striking workers. So this does not seem to be a concern.

sturmblast

•

I guess it all depends on the motive

CmdrShepard

•

Why produce more if you can stagnate production and just charge more per unit? It's not like you can go buy an electric truck from anyone else so your demand isn't going to decrease much. This is how OPEC operates when setting fuel prices.

HurlingDurling

•

Ford lays off 700 who were building electric version of F-150 | CNN Business::Ford is laying off about 700 workers who build the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck, and unlike other recent layoffs this one has nothing to do with the ongoing strike by the United Auto Workers union.

Answer is right on the text of the post.

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Ford had temporarily closed the plant this summer to upgrade its production capability, and the company said this latest layoff is related to “multiple constraints, including the supply chain and working through processing and delivering vehicles held for quality checks after restarting production in August.”

Sales of the Lightning fell 45% in the third quarter compared to a year earlier, the company reported earlier this month, though Ford said it expected to post an increase in sales during the final three months of the year as capacity increases at the plant take effect.

The UAW’s targeted strike at a total of five assembly factories at Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have prompted all three companies to lay off workers.

On Thursday, company executives said there could be a total of 4,600 layoffs by the end of this week at its various plants due to the expansion of the strike to Kentucky Truck.

GM has laid off 2,300 workers that it attributes to the impact of the strike, although no additional layoffs have been announced in recent days.

But the F-150 Lightning workers who are laid off will be eligible for both unemployment and sub pay, according to Ford spokesperson Jessica Enoch.

The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Spyd3r

•

Electric trucks were a mistake from the beginning, glad they're finally realizing it.

TheRealKuni

•

Electric trucks were a mistake from the beginning, glad they're finally realizing it.

How so?

UristMcHolland

•

It's probably not what they were thinking but a Van can do most anything a truck can do except when it comes to off-road capabilities. For hauling and towing, a Van can usually do the same job without being a machine designed to kill pedestrians.

Drop_All_Users

•

Ford lays off 700 who were building electric version of F-150 | CNN Business::Ford is laying off about 700 workers who build the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its best-selling pickup truck, and unlike other recent layoffs this one has nothing to do with the ongoing strike by the United Auto Workers union.

Ugh, no I don't want to throw a bunch of hay and straw inside a van, you'll have straw stuck in the crevices of the dashboard forever.

Drop_All_Users

•

I mean I very much want an electric truck just not for $70,000+, I need a a vehicle that can do the following:

Carry a 4 person family
Is reliable/newer/won't break down
Can do trips to the hardware store/hold lumber/drywall/etc on occasion
Can move furniture/appliances on occasion
Can move hay/straw on a semi regular basis
Bonus points if I can take off road/on mountain trails

If there was an affordable electric truck that could do this I would buy it, but I bought my (used) Tacoma for about $25k 4 years ago and I really can't justify anything more expensive then that.

So if they can bring electric trucks down in price, I will buy one, and I want it to look like a truck, I would never consider a cyber truck, thats beyond ugly.

Usernameblankface

•

Once a f150 lightning is as used as that Tacoma was when you bought it, then it should make sense. All the examples with issues from factory mistakes would have weeded themselves out of the used truck pool, and there should be enough newer fancier electric trucks to bring down the value of today's trucks when they're 5-10 years old.

As long as you're not towing or road tripping, it should do everything on your list for a reasonable price. It just going to be a while.

AA5B

•

We all have a similar scenario where vehicles are so expensive that we really need them to cover every use case. Married people at least have the option of different vehicles for different use cases

I have to admit, I’m considering whether I can swing two cars to better serve my needs: an EV most of the time, but keep my SUV for groups or carrying or road trips

grayman

•

No real towing or load hauling capability. Edison is the only company that seems to be honest about that and is working to overcome the problem.

QuandaleDingle

•

I mean, if you make a diesel/electric hybrid, it isn't going to be that hard to fix the problem. Still has emissions, though.

grayman

•

Look up Edison Motors. Diesel is very efficient if operated at its optimal fuel/air mixture at the right rpm, like what happens in a generator. Emissions are already coming out of coal and gas plants. We have a problem today with infrastructure. Trying to skip the transition by going straight to electric only will not work at scale. This is already being proven. And zero emissions is a myth. What we're doing is shifting emissions upstream. Incremental improvements and gradual reductions using the existing infrastructure while the new infrastructure is organically built due to market pressure is the only way forward. Forcing the leap is failing and will continue to fail.

SmoothIsFast

•

Electric vehicles have instant torque, can use actual independent motors for each wheel to maximize grip, and can have higher hp than their gas counterparts. They have better towing and hauling capabilities than a comparable gas equivalent, I get you don't understand physics but it's a pretty basic concept, ffs....

grayman

•

To clarify, it's the capacity, not the motors. Check out this garbage: https://youtu.be/3nS0Fdayj8Y The more load, the worse it gets for battery capacity. Even 200% improvement in battery capacity through innovation is not enough. Electric motors are clearly better in pretty much every way. But carrying literal tons of batteries with a reduced travel distance and hours of down time to charge is not going to work. If it did, tesla rigs would be flying out of the factories. Seriously, check out Edison Motors. Their electric truck is a balance of electric, battery capacity, and recharge with an onboard generator OR from the grid. You get the benefits of ICE and electric with no apparent pitfalls like electric only.

PipedLinkBot

•

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/3nS0Fdayj8Y

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

SmoothIsFast

•

To clarify, it's the capacity, not the motors.

Fair enough, sorry for assuming you were gonna pull out the electric is just shit argument. I haven't looked into Edison motors but there is a British sport car manufacturer, can't believe I'm drawing a blank right now on the name, working on using an electric drive train with a small battery and hydrogen turbine generator that supplies 300mi of range and supposedly can run on anything from diseal to hydrogen allowing it to be completely green once we have the needed infrastructure. That battery only give like 50mi of range if I am remembering correctly but the turbine allows us to use more energy dense solutions for powering the drive train. Thus offsetting any capacity issues and needing to recharge on the track, as the car was more track/performance focused. I think for those looking to get similar range and capacity these types of solutions would be perfect, and allows us to get the benefits of both sides while mitigating anyone issue. Hopefully we can push for more hybrid like solutions like this as I think it would satisfy most gripes we have with going to more green machinery. Infrastructure is not fully built out for hydrogen or electric charging? Cool top off the generator at the gas station takes the same amount of time as before and vehicle maintenance is simpler with an electric drivetrain, keeping similar convience while also primed to take advantage of green solutions like hydrogen stations or fast chargers as they become more prevelant.

You999

•

I agree electric doesn't currently make sense for semi trucks but it really seems like you are trying to argue that the downsides of a semi truck apply to a pickup truck when they are two completely different vehicles for two very different use cases.

Your whole point about the more weight you add reduces the range of an EV but you also leave out the fact that adding more weight also reduces the fuel economy of ICE vehicles. Most estimates say that for every 100lb of additional weight you can expect around a 2% drop in fuel economy. For an average size tow behind RV (6500lb wet) that's a 65% drop in fuel economy.

I do not know where you got "hours of down time to charge". Maybe you were looking at the level two home charging rates? The Ford F150 lighting is capable of charging to 80% (the recommended limit) in 36 minutes for the smaller battery and 41 minutes with the extended range battery using level 3 DC fast charging. I'm no math major but I don't think that's hours of downtime

sebinspace

•

“I hate the new thing because it’s not the old thing”

AA5B

•

While your parent also looks like trolling to me, and I also downvoted it for hatred without a reason … this could go in a more constructive direction if we’re considering truck buyers may be more conservative. Truck buyers do seem to be the last bastion of excessive brand loyalty, regardless of their own best interests

Spyd3r

•

Sure, when the new thing sucks and the old thing is better.

bemenaker

•

Sales orders say differently. Since the majority of truck owners nowadays aren't people who use them for work, they are popular, and nothing is wrong with them. They have more power than a gas truck as well.

jose1324

•

Nothing is wrong with them?

https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=exiaP8HtNYs4au3z

bemenaker

•

OK, but that is a totally different topic than electric trucks are bad, which was the start of this discussion. Do I think that there should be less trucks on the road, yes. When I was younger, you didn't own a truck unless you regularly hauled stuff in the bed, or towed stuff. Now people own them just because. But again, you have totally changed the topic here.

jose1324

•

Hey, I'm not the one that said nothing is wrong with them and that they are good.

bemenaker

•

You're still changing the subject. That has nothing to do with the original complaint. The person starting this part of the thread I'm sure just wants a gas or diesel engine. That is all they are complaining about. You're making it about safety, it's valid, but off topic for the current discussion.

PipedLinkBot

•

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/jN7mSXMruEo?si=exiaP8HtNYs4au3z

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

jose1324

•

Bad bot

Spyd3r

•

Gas trucks are for schoolgirls, diesel is where it's at.

yuunikki

•

Boomer logic