By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist

I’d like to propose one cost-cutting measure for the Big Three: Fire your public relations outfits. They are, to put it mildly, not getting the job done.

AP

After raising a ruckus by arriving in Washington two weeks ago via separate (and costly) private jets, now the auto execs are supposedly driving to D.C. – in hybrids! Really, how ridiculous.

More and more, this country’s government and business community is managing by soundbite.

According to MapQuest, it will take 8 hours and 57 minutes to drive from GM’s headquarters to the capitol, and only five minutes less for Mr. Mulally to drive from Dearborn. Is this a good use of their time?

More and more, this country’s government and business community is managing by soundbite. Reading over Ford’s plan, which was submitted on Tuesday morning to Congress, I am struck by all the politically correct proposals it contains, and by the equally notable absence of hard new decisions.

Ford’s management, clearly rattled by the surprisingly hostile reaction to the appeal made by all three auto companies in their first session with Congress, has seemingly attempted to come back with something to please everyone. Such as:

* They will accelerate the introduction of “high-quality, safe and fuel-efficient vehicles –- including a broader range of hybrid-electric vehicles and the introduction of advanced plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles.” Suddenly Ford has become concerned about the environment, and the potential threat of rising oil prices.

That sounds great (though conceivably after the fact), but later on we learn that half the Ford, Mercury and Lincoln line by 2010 will qualify as “Advanced Technology Vehicles” under the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, which means that Ford will be able to access government loans under that act. In fact, as the ratio of these cars increases, Ford will apparently be able to tap $5 billion in Department of Energy loans by 2011. Could this be why the company is so confident that they will be cash flow positive in 2011?

* CEO Mulally has agreed that if the company does have to borrow from “a potential government bridge loan” he will be willing to work for $1. As noted above, apparently the company has the ability to borrow heavily from the government already, all in the name of reducing our dependence on imported oil. So, this promise is unlikely to mean much.

* The company will sell its five corporate aircraft. Big deal.

* The company will improve the fuel efficiency of its fleet an average of 14% for 2009 models and 25% for 2012 models. I’m not sure if this includes the shift to hybrids and a market-driven swing towards smaller vehicles, but I can’t help thinking that this mileage improvement is happening all on its own. As oil prices soared last year and earlier this year, consumers parted with their beloved SUVs in record numbers. The shifting mix of car sales certainly hurts the auto companies, but does increase fuel efficiency. Highlighting the prospective gains as part of the plan is simply to curry favor with the environmental crowd. It’s wasted breath. That lobby would rather the execs walk to DC.

These are assuredly tough times for the auto companies. Staggering from the harm done by recent sky-high oil prices, the industry has also been hard-hit by the recession. Americans are sympathetic to the plight of the car companies, but recognize that the industry is unlikely to solve its main issue without going through the kind of reorganization that the airlines have endured.

The reality is that there is little in the Ford plan that is new, or that tackles the stubborn cost differential that has and that will continue to cripple not only Ford but GM and Chrysler as well. You simply cannot make cars with an embedded cost structure of $70 an hour and hope to compete with others paying $40 an hour. That is the simple truth, and until industry and Congress admit to that, no amount of bailout will prevent another collapse down the road.