They are creating new jobs at their Liverpool production plant.

They are investing heavily in one of their Midlands production facilities to make lighter, more environmentally friendly vehicles.

They are combining the other Midlands production facility without any compulsory redundancies so they can work more efficiently.

Heard this on the News a minute ago and you would have thought that it was all going tits up and they were closing the company down. I know the company gloss will hide some of the personal hardship stories but I have never heard a positive investment story so negatively reported.

But don't worry, the unions are fighting it….

The press love a bit of doom and gloom.

I guess solihull will go, with disco/rrsport going up to halewood. Range rover might go to castle brom with the jags.

Hopefully they'll put a bit of thought into a boxster rival.

'Mon the Unions, don't let modernisation and investing in the future get in the way of a good strike!

Seems the Government are seeing the positive in it, which is sure to put a shity stain on any company attempts to put across the good story 😉

Revive Daimler for luxury versions of the current XJ so more margin per unit.
XK is doing okay at the moment
XF might do okay but not convinced it is good enough.
Spin a smaller XK from the XF platform perhaps? A boxster with a bit of luxury.
LR – the new RR Sport sorted out the real weak link even though ther old one sold well.
Baby LR should help too.

Just need to drop costs and invest in new equipment. A bit like they said in their new announcement.

The press don't have the full story, changes to pension arrangements, lose roughly 20% final pension, new contracts for everyone next year so single contract for all employees, manufacture of vehicles outside the UK (chinese built XJ anyone?) outsourcing of product development, only mention of redundancy is no compulsories, 20% lower salaries for any new hires including contractors, 4 pages of changes put over in a JFDI manner.

Think the writing is on the wall for CB, too expensive to modernise paint shop to accomodate trucks, land locked so unable to expand, 2000 at CB, 5000 at Solihull therefore easier transfer of labour, Product development based in Cov to move to Gaydon, JLR to become LR PLC as all Jag facilities will be closed (Halewood is a LR plant now), veneer plant to be closed/sold etc etc so not the rosey picture that you may have heard

votchy – I agree. I did say in my original post that the company would try and hide some bad news but on balance, right at the moment I would have talked this up rather than down.

So it will be "TATA" to Landrover then.

Reminds me of a very old story in the ever excellent Daily Mash…

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/jaguar-to-keep-making-cars-no%11one-can-afford-200812181468/

In what way is slimming down a company good news ?

The company has already axed 2500 jobs, freezed pay, and cancelled bonuses this year. They are now saying that next year they might close Castle Bromwich (2000 jobs) or Solihull (5000 jobs)

But[/b] it's "great news" because they are creating 800 new jobs at Halewood ? WTF ?

.

Yeah, right …………….
"Can I have your attention lads, I got good news and bad news.
First the bad news. There's nothing to eat apart from shit.
Now the good news. There's plenty of it."

I think it is good news that the people who run the company have got the balls to take some serious measures to make the company profitable in the future. JLR make some fantastic products, both in production and in the pipeline, and it truly deserves to be successful (after many years of mismanagement by previous owners). The media will always try to make a sensational headline out of not much news – the closure of a plant is to take place over the next 10 years, so it is not as though there will be a flood of people losing their jobs. Their jobs will either be transferred to where production moves (which could only be 10 miles away), or be lost as people leave/retire etc. I am particularly passionate about the place, having worked their for 26 years. Do I think the company will survive? Yes, I will stake my pension on it!!

I so hope you are right large418, and the optimism and faith in the future are well founded. Sadly recent history of British car manufacturing appears to be one of broken promises and false optimism. Maybe Tata will indeed be the company which reverses this trend, but I don't find it very easy to recognise how a company which has, in the 18 short months of ownership of JLR, shed thousands of jobs and threaten to ditch development unless it received massive government loans, and now is promising further job losses, represents an unqualified bright future for JLR. Still, if the workforce accepts managements plans, then lets hope they are indeed successful.

And btw, in reference to this "funny ha-ha" comment : "But don't worry, the unions are fighting it" how the **** does the author think that JLR management has managed to shed 2500 jobs, freeze pay, and cancel bonuses in the last year ? Yes, with the agreement of the unions :

Unite national secretary for the automotive sector, said: "Earlier this year, this company and our union agreed a framework agreement intended to support JLR through this tough economic period.

In April our members agreed to changes to terms and conditions of their employment in order to give the company financial security,

We recognise the difficult trading environment for JLR, which is why Unite and its members have done more to help JLR during this recession than we have with any other company.

Some of the problems the company faces today exist as a result of past management failures. These failures were at the hands of the same team who today want our members to lose their pensions."

http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/unite_rejects_jaguar_attempts.aspx

What Tata have really done is to force JLR to face up to the seriousness of their past mistakes (and previous owners mistakes). And they have made, and continue to make sure that the company honours its commitments (meeting budgets, sales targets, etc). Unfortunately when sales decline, budgets are reduced, and to protect the long term future, jobs are cut. So, for the 85% of people who remain at JLR, the future is more secure. I would rather 15% of people lose their jobs now, than 100% in a year or two. The unions have worked well with the company's management over the past year or so to make necessary cuts. I am firmly of the opinion that an engineering company has to be very efficient in the modern world in order to be able to withstand all the forces from round the world. There will always be cheaper labour than in the UK, there will always be cheaper land, cheaper materials, etc etc. We have to be streamlined. efficient etc etc to be able to withstand these forces. If a company does not have the income to fund their plants/employees/assets/whatevers, guess what. So, either increase income (difficult) or reduce costs. Unfortunately, people are an easy way of cutting costs (but in the good times, they are an easy way of increasing output/profits as well). Some of the Unions postulating upsets me, but I understand their motivations, although I do believe that there are times when Union actions are for short term gain at the expense of long term survival. I guess we'll see when discussions are over where peoples interests really lie.

Yes indeed large418, as you say. "there will always be cheaper labour than in the UK, there will always be cheaper land, cheaper materials, etc etc.". And yes, British workers can compensate, to a degree, by providing greater efficiency to "withstand these forces", as you put it. But how long will this last for ? …….a couple of days ago India launched her first succession mission to the Moon. The technology is catching up, and catching up fast, Britain will not be able to maintain that advantage forever.

But there is no need to be defeatist about the future. If the will is there, then what is left of British manufacturing can still be saved. It just requires commitment, commitment to put British jobs first. Just as a very small example, there is no reason why British police forces shouldn't be expected to buy British – putting the interests of a British family before that of a family on the other side of the world. Apply that to public transport too, and local authorities etc etc. There is no way that British jobs should be lost to unfair competition. And plenty apart from 'procurement' requirements and contract compliance clauses, can be used to help British workers.
But all that requires a different way of thinking …….

Jaguar has never made a profit. Ever.

LR is one of the most profitable car companies in the world. The Disco 1 was THE most profitable car ever.

One gets passed on to act as incentive to buy the other.

Shame as they both make great vehicles.

As far as Eco credentails, the Defender has very sensible 'cradle to grave' emissions. Especially when you factor in the fact that the design life span for a modern car is 7 years (limited by emission controlling ECU availability ironically) and 70% of all defenders are still on the road.

As far as the EU emission data: it's a total joke and in no way represents emission outputs in daily use. That's why fuel tax is so much fairer.

But never mind, so long as it rakes tax in for our Socialist government.

mikertroid – Jaguar HAS made a profit – FACT, it was making money before Ford bought it and it made money during Ford ownership, please check your facts before you gob off

Votchy.

Jag has never made a profit. FACT. I have that from an exceedingly good source. I will double check my gen, but I feel you may have to swallow your words.

And I'm not gobbing off-chill out before you make accusations.

Votchy,

This took a couple of minutes to source without much effort:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3645036.ece

As said, I'll double check from my source; he's away for a fortnight, however.

It's LR that pull up the figures. That's what happened at the Rover Group too-they lived off the profit of LR for years before they sold it and eventually went under. TATA wouldn't have touched Jag without LR!

However the Jaguar 'brand' is what keeps it going; it's a superb image.

I'm not critisising Jags, lovely cars (my old man had a 6.25litre TWR XJS years back) and the new ones are goregeous; but it doesn't make them profitable.

Look at most of the car manufacturers worldwide-most are losing money and most are volume manufacturers.

I'll revisit this when I've had my gen confirmed.

TATA for now!!!!!

mikertroid – sorry to be harsh, working for Jag makes me a bit touchy, however, the figures that are published internally and now externally within the business has shown Jag making a profit at times, do agree that LR have been making more though – am a bit passionate about the company I work for 😀

Of course Jaguar cars have made a profit. Does anyone really think they could have been around for over 80 years without ever making a profit ? And when Jaguar was part of BLMC/BL, it was one of the group's most profitable marques.

Votchy,

I totally understand! As said, It's a premium marque and carries alot of weight too. AND makes fine cars.

Ernie_l: Sorry to burst your bubble!!

As said before, I'll get the exact data, but a recent conversation on the topic of Jag indicated that it's always been a loss making org-more of a loss-leader really even from its outset. As far as when it was in BL's hands-I'm not sure what planet you were on there-but even without looking at the economics of it, when you consider the complexity of the units they were selling compared to the volume it's no wonder they lost money!

Talking losses, the vast majority of Rovers (25/45/800) were sold at a loss (for reasons not discussable on a public forum). The 75 was underpriced, and wasn't taken as seriously as it should. Had it been correctly priced it would have sold more due to the strange psychology of the consumer!! The Metro, ironically was a cost-neutral project which made the MGF profitable until they closed down the line at Longbridge making the MGF a loss maker too.

Very sad story.

Why is previous profitability relevant? Yes, Jaguar has made big losses in the past, and has also made profits (not for many years I admit, but it has made profits). Even under Ford there were good years. Land Rover is an iconic brand, and has traded (and profited) on this for many years. Even Land Rover has made losses in the past.
Neither company would have been bought by Ford or Tata if they did not have a future. Both Ford and Tata have looked at the projected performance of the companies they have bought before they part with any cash, and who wouldn't? Past performance is not always a good indicator of the future (just looks at some of the banks).
The fact is that both Jaguar and Land Rover are now producing cars that are better quality, more fuel efficient, more desirable, cleaner emitting than ever before, and this is what Tata are looking at. Remember that Tata have a long term vision (20 years).
Plus there are other benefits to Tata of having a fantastic research centre producing technology far beyond what they are capable of – this could be part of their long term vision (but who knows?).
This isn't blind optimism. You only have to look at what is being done within JLR to see that there is a future. Shutting plants is one way of guaranteeing that (after all, no other car manfacturer would even dream of having 3 manufactuing sites and 2 engineering sites for a total volume of 250,000 vehicles – it cannot be sustained.)

even from its outset

Sorry mate, you've completely lost me – I can't believe you expect anyone to believe, that Jaguar has been making losses since 1922.

And I wouldn't get too hung up on the 'profit fetish' anyhow. I'm sure that Jaguar could have shown a profit if JLR were determined to show one – Jag and LR share much in common for a start. Playing around with profit within a group is fairly easy. Indeed iirc, in the early 1970's Ford UK imported components including engines, from Ford Spain for assembly in the UK. The price Ford UK paid for these components was well above their true value, as a consequence, Ford UK made little or no profit, whilst Ford Spain made huge profits. Now at the time the unions in the UK had some clout, and of course everyone knows that "the company isn't making any profit" is always management's trump card. And needless to say, that trump card wasn't need by management in Spain. The trump card for the management in Spain in the early 1970's was : "you live in a fascist dictatorship, you have no independent trade unions, and you cannot go on strike". The strategy worked fairly well.

As I say, "profitability" is often a meaningless term, it really depends on how you define it. And I really don't want to go down the road of discussing 'surplus value', but remember, there is only one way that a manufacturer can make a profit – by overcharging it's customers, ie charging over and above, the costs involved in producing the product. To get back to Jag, a quote from the Telegraph at the time when Tata were about to buy them : "Land Rover made profits of about $1.2bn (£600m) last year – or about £2,200 per car – and while Jaguar made a small loss due to launch costs of the well-received XF model, it is now basically back in the black."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/2787062/Tata-must-keep-up-to-the-marque.html

And as for jag not making a profit when it was part of BL "Despite containing profitable marques such as Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, as well as the best-selling Mini, British Leyland had a troubled history"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland_Motor_Corporation

Ernie,

You've answered you own doubts. You can make any outfit produce 'profit' dependant on what timescale/criteria you use. 'Basically back in black'? What does that actually mean?!

I'm not obsessed by profit, but posters here didn't seem to be aware of the history behind things. If you don't believe me, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it!
I've had this confirmed previously by an extremely reliable and authoritive industry figure, but I will for fairness get it confirmed when we speak next. I was as surprised to hear it as you, to be honest. The politic/economics behind it were quite interesting.

Think your wiki quote is quite amusing!! BL was a shambles from top to bottom. As said, I'll get it confirmed by a much more reliable source than the t'internet!! Wiki has its uses, however, I grant you that.

Large:

TATA HAD to buy them both as a job lot. They weren't goint to get LR without an offset. Ford were struggling and had to get rid. They didn't want to let go of LR but there you go.

Jag last made a profit when it was plc,in the mid 80's

Jag last made a profit when it was plc,in the mid 80's

How long for? I'd be interested to know. Making the XJS and XJ6??!!

Again it's probably a good use of stats to make a headline. Most of the UK automotive industry was well into decline a decade before that.

. You can make any outfit produce 'profit' dependant on what timescale/criteria you use. 'Basically back in black'? What does that actually mean?!

Exactly …………. that's my point ! ………… oh isn't nice when you agree on something 😀

And I would have thought most people were aware that Jaguar didn't make huge profits whilst under the ownership of Ford …… but that isn't the only consideration, is it ?

As far as the wiki quote is concerned, I did of course, realise that you would dismiss it out of hand ie, "if it's in Wikipedia then it can't be true – in fact the opposite must be true" but if you want to do that, then it's fine by me – I simply can't be bothered 8)

& jags were selling like hot cakes to the US of A at the time.The series 3 XJ6 actually made them a lot of money once they stopped it's roof from leaking…..

Oh look, after saying "I simply can't be bothered" I've decided to come back. And look what a quick search has turned up :

"BL's financial year runs from 1 January to 31 December. In the 12 months ending 31 December 1983 the Jaguar group made a profit before taxation of £50 million. "

That's a quote from "Hansard" which was quoting Norman Tebbit the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1984.

Is that any good ? Is "Hansard" OK ?

😉

EDIT : Sorry I forgot to include the link :

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1984/aug/01/jaguar-cars

Well done,you finally managed to shut up Mr"I've had this confirmed previously by an extremely reliable and authoritive industry figure"
🙄

Hansard ok?! Give over!!

I know it's not!! The trite that gets put up in parliament ain't worth the paper….

I look forward to discussing that with 'the horses mouth' so to speak! I'm expecting that I'll get a good insight on how they derived that figure too.

I'd still maintain that despite (arguably) making monies over certain periods, It has been a loss leader throughout.

I'd put my man as more reliable and insightful than some government figure, not hard to believe given the current state of things!!

Emac65,

if you don't like it then don't read it!!

I was a surprised as you too. But I didn't get irate about it!

Grow up.

They made a profit as a plc & then a loss as part of the Ford group etc…

Is that good enough for you ?

As for getting irate,I just like reeling them in….sploosh there's another…

Whatever, ermac. I'll get my info checked. It appears that it HAS at times made a profit, particularly in the early '80s after a bad period.

I'll be keen to see what comes up.

Now who's irate….
I was working for them at the time so kinda know what was going on 8)

Well if you were at director level then I'll listen….

Hmm not quite but they had this thing going on with profit & shares,lets just say I did rather well out of it 8)

Okay. So when was that?

Mikertroid,
have a look at the Jaguar share price when they were a standalone company (1986 to 1992 or so). There was a significant increase in share price while the company was on the stock market. That doesn't usually happen with loss making companies. From your posts so far, there seems to be little substance other than "I have a reliable source who told me". I also have a reliable source who told me, the only question is whether my source is more reliable than yours. Come back with some facts.

Amyway, I can't see why you are getting hung up on whether Jaguar made a profit. It's the future that counts, not the past.

Tata did not have to buy Jaguar or Land Rover. They were free to walk away at any time if they did not like the deal. They did, however, recognise that the Product Development side of Jaguar and Land Rover was so intertwined that it would be difficult to split. Thay also recognised that both brands had fantastic products and a real future. We could do with far sighted companies like that in the UK.