• Mar 25th 2009 at 3:57PM
  • 27
Ford's CEO Alan Mulally took hope a tidy $13.57 million compensation package for his work in 2008, While that's a handsome sum, it represents a 37 percent cut of the $21.67 million he took home in 2007 – and that's before the ex-Boeing exec takes an additional 30 percent haircut for 2009. By comparison, General Motors' CEO Rick Wagoner and Chrysler's Bob Nardelli are slated to have salaries of $1 each, although both automakers have already received $17.4 billion in federal loans.

In addition, Automotive News reports that the company will abolish merit raises for salaried workers in the U.S. (and in most of its global ops), kill off a worldwide incentive compensation program for 2008 and newer employees, and give no compensation to board members for 2009.

In related news that's causing a bit of consternation, AN is reporting that Mulally and executive chairman Bill Ford will continue to use corporate jets for business and private travel. The flights will be chartered planes, as Ford put its own fleet of private aircraft up for sale some time ago after being chided by politicians during the bailout hearings on Capitol Hill.

Speaking of which, Ford also has some news on that front, as well. The Wall Street Journal reports that House Majority Leader Richard "Dick" Gephardt has now found a seat on the Blue Oval's board, as has Anthony Earley, chairman and CEO of DTE Energy Co. The two bigwigs replace seats vacated by members who reportedly no longer have the necessary time to serve.

[Sources: Automotive News - subs. req.; Wall Street Journal | Image: AFP/Getty]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Years Ago
      Jeez. He looks ridiculous. Mr. Rogers, Mulally edition?!
      • 6 Years Ago
      Seriously? Gephardt? I think I'd almost rather have Pelosi.

      Why the hell would Ford put a corrupt politician on their board? That's a worse idea than a $3.6 trillion federal budget.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I guess a $0.6 Trillion budget with $2.4 trillion of emergency funding sounds better to you.
        • 6 Years Ago
        It would actually be more accurate to say Gephardt is a "former" corrupt politician.

        Nowadays he just spends his time as a Washington lobbyist as president and CEO of Gephardt Group which in turn "helps clients improve Labor Relations, develop Political and Public Policy Strategies and enhance Business Results by gaining access to new markets or partners."

        In other words, his clients pay him to lobby congress for political favors and maybe a kickback or two. The system definitely sucks, but it might be a good thing for Ford to have somebody with his connections on the board.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Corrupt politician? Citation required, please.

        Rep. Gephardt has a record for keeping his politics clean; a practice that cost him the presidential nomination in 88, 92, and 04. He is also supports American workers and is anti-NAFTA. This is a good fit for Ford.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Work for $1? I would too if I got the bonuses and stock options these jokers do.
        • 6 Years Ago
        CEO of Ford does not get paid. He puts ALL of his money back into the company.

        So a "PAY CUT" means nothing.

        Auto Blog makes up the stupidest things.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Oh c'mon, I'm all for rewarding "performance", but if you think some of the ludicrous amounts of compensation the top execs at corporations/banks get is deserved, then you got another thing coming (for the top brass at the Wall St. firms, big commercial banks and mortgage firms - the tens to hundreds of millions in compensation for a 6-7 year period was basically based on a fraud).
        • 6 Years Ago
        JSJS... Not talking about the execs at AIG or even GM/Chrysler/Ford, etc. I am talking about the ramifications of a all-powerful government that mandates just how much either you or I can make and mandates how much we're "worth" in the marketplace. Slippery slope here folks. All this blubber about bonuses is a smoke and mirror game to keep your eyes off the slight of hand trick happening before our eyes to take away our freedom and liberty and replace it with Big Brothers ideal of what will be. Our founding Fathers would flip out if they saw the power and authority that the Feds are wielding.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Still amazed that he took home that much. Yes, Ford has not received taxpayer bailout money (yet), but with lower sales, plant closings and employees being fired, seeing the CEO taking home $14M is a little disturbing.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I am "assuming" that reading comprehension is not your strong suit???

        $8.7 million of that, is in stock options. As a matter of fact, much of Mulally's compensation, since coming to Ford, has been in the form of stock options.

        He has never excercised any of his options.

        In the future, when Fords stock goes up............ and he does excercise his options........... yes, he will be a VERY rich man. However, that "bonus," will be very much deserved, since, if Fords stock goes up................ he has obviously done an amazing job, running Ford.

        Wagoner, at GM, had very similar compensation, to Mulally, for 2008.

        Who do you think got the most "bang for their buck?"
      • 6 Years Ago
      Hey this is great. The government continues to hamstring American business by making it impossible to reward those who do outstanding work. Yes American, there are actually hard working individuals in domestic industry that do merit and or were contractually promised extra compensation for a job well done. Talk about setting a precedent to slaughter innovation and excellence while practicing outrageous hypocrisy. Just yesterday our own federal government stated that they need to pay the White House staffers "their bonuses" so that they can "keep the very best people" on the job. How is anyone in American business different? Oh... wait... do as I say... not as I do. Amazing we're putting up with this.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I hope the good people of Missouri castigate that bloviating gasbag Gephardt for having the time to sit on Ford's board instead of doing the people's business they sent him to Congress to do. He now needs to recuse himself from any and all discussions related to supporting the auto industry when they come before the House. If he doesn't he deserves to be slapped down hard.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Gephardt hasn't been in congress since 2005 so I guess he's free to sit on any company board he wants.

        I hate to say it, but this was probably a good move for Ford considering his political pull and affiliations.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Thank you for the correction. Autoblog needs to correct the story to say "Former House Majority Leader".

        The result of this correction is that Ford has effectively added a lobbyist to its board. Which is great for Ford but not necessarily great for the taxpayer. . .

        I really wish we could limit the access to government of former legislators and rein in the lobbyist wagon train. But I understand how that would be problematic constitutionally.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Wow didnt know Mr. Rogers ran a car company. Maybe thats why their cars look like they've been designed and manufactured by a child. The only positive thing about ford is it isnt GM or Chrysler.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Another troll. Please go play in traffic.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Gilligan's running FORD now????
      • 6 Years Ago
      I think if one took they're head out of they're posterior that it has been a standing protocol sine 9-11 to provide the SPEAKER OF THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES a military flight for SECURITY PURPOSES. She is THIRD IN LINE TARD!!
      Try a civics lesson before you type fwad
      • 6 Years Ago
      I still don't understand why the use of private planes is such a big deal? I feel like the only reason it's always in the headlines is because it's something that the average, wage-earning, American can see as a frivolity and be upset about.

      Any rational person can see that these jets are tools and actually *save* these companies money. Regardless, I'm sure this comment section will be flooded with posts about how "wasteful" and "extravagant" the use of private planes is.
        • 6 Years Ago
        • 6 Years Ago
        • 6 Years Ago
        Exactly. Everyone demands that the Big 3:

        Be efficient in design.
        Be efficient in production.
        Produce products that are efficient in resource consumption.
        blah blah blah blah...

        But yet expects their employees to, what, hitch-hike for company related travel?

        Company cars? That's too cushy!
        Company jets? Over the top!
        Company travel? Wasteful!

        Kudos for Ford not having taking any fed money directly. Now they can go tell those with "consternation" about their travel to stick it you-know-where. (GM and Chrysler - having gobbled at the federal trough - will have to bend over and take it or risk Barney Fwank's name-subpeona'ing-wrath. I'm not sure which is worse.)
        • 6 Years Ago
        excellent comments by all. I think we put to death the notion that corporate flights were a waste of money as long as it is for CORPORATE work.

        on the flip side to David's point, we have the esteemed Dame Pelosi using military birds to flit here family and entourage hither and dither. Fine if CA wants to pay for it (ya think that will fit in their budget right now?) but dont foist that bill on me. those blowhards are overpaid as is. give her business class or coach and let her use the time to chat with her constituency.

        • 6 Years Ago
        I'll tell you why, it's to distract the average american from how much the federal government is screwing up this nation.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Isn't there something with the "Big 3" that bosses can't travel using public transport (eg normal commercial flights) due to security risks? I seem to remember reading that somewhere...
        • 6 Years Ago
        I don't really have a problem w/ the use for corporate jets for legitimate corporate business (I, however, don't consider Mulally using Ford's corporate jet to fly home to Seattle on the weekends "company business").

        But when the "Big 3" CEOs went to testify before Congress - they could have very well shared a ride on one jet instead of each taking his own plane.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X