Re: Hugh Ferry: Packard's most underrated president?

Posted by 58L8134 On 2010/1/17 13:23:38

Hello Gentlemen

Of the need of a modern, one story assembly plant: the economies affected by such operations were well established by the early '50's. As an objective to be achieved by, say 1960, it should have been developed properly and built at Utica adjacent to that plant. In the meantime, keeping body production at the leased Connor Avenue plant and final assembly at East Grand might have guaranteed continuing fine quality and timely availability. Hastily shoving assembly operations into a plant only large enough for body making operations was just a mind-boggling mistake.

Of Defense Contractor versus Automaker: Packard was an automaker with a strong defense contracting business that transitioned into a defense contractor with an auto making division. Defense work was notoriously difficult because of capricious changes in specifications and political whims.

It is forever to the shame of those involved in the Eisenhower Administration, specifically Defense Secretary Charles Wilson the way Packard was dismissed as a supplier, mainly for GM's benefit. While not to denigrate GM contribution to the war effort, Packard had made such yeomen contributions for a company its size, continued granting of defense work should have been treated as an obligation. Packard helped win the war, only to lose its business life in the peacetime it helped to guarantee, for shame!

Hummm, maybe what's happened to GM now is just desserts!

Steve