Talk:Collins Aerospace

Merge Goodrich Corporation article into UTC Aerospace Systems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was do not merge.

---

Oppose - Goodrich Corporation has sufficient history on its own which includes that of BF Goodrich.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a lousy idea! The company's history doesn't cease to exist simply because of the merger. The Wikipedia is filled with pages of corporations that have merged into others, and still maintain pages with the old names. (Example: see North American Aviation and North American Rockwell.) The proper thing to do is to write summary references in here (which are totally absent so far). A section, with a Template:Main linking to Goodrich Corporation, would be appropriate. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I Agree that Goodrich should maitain its own presenece. HOWEVER, the UTC Aerospace Systems page makes NO mention of Goodrich, which is just WRONG. UTC Aerospace Systems did not even exist until the Goodrich Hamilton merger, and since UTAS is equal parts Goodrich and Hamilton (more Goodrich than Hamilton if you measure by profits) than the UTC Aerospace Systems page MUST give equal mention of Goodrich as part of this newly formed organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.113.17 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. UTC Aerospace Systems is defective, in that it incorrectly asserts that it is the same as Hamilton Sundstrand, created in a 1999 merger of Sundstrand Corporation into Hamilton Standard. I thought at first, that maybe someone improperly did an article move, but that's apparently not the case. The new name just started this year when Goodrich was merged in with HS.

And BTW, what you wrote is a bit confusing; you actually oppose the page merge, right? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is in sad shape; need to start from scratch

Exactly what I thought happened, as I said above, apparently did happen: User:Ahnoneemoos simply, improperly moved Hamilton Sundstrand into this page. This seems to have been fixed by someone else (the other page was restored), but then someone with a conflict of interest, not even bothering to hide it by picking this title as his username, wrote this as a promotional article, also highly improper. This in turn was "fixed" by some well-meaning but misguided soul who restored it as a clone of the Hamilton Sundstrand page. It needs to be started from scratch. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UTC Aerospace Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130128131649/http://utcaerospacesystems.com:80/about/ to http://utcaerospacesystems.com/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Separate Pages for UTAS and Collins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pages split. – Frood (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

---

With the Collins Merger, it seems like we should either totally revamp this page to include info on legacy Rockwell Collins (which constitutes nearly half of Collins Aerospace), or, as we did with Hamilton Sundstrand and Goodrich, create a new page, leaving UTAS as a page documenting the historical UTAS business. I'ma fan of making UTAS and Collins separate pages

As a side note, the table at the bottom is sorely missing many of Collins' subsidiaries (Delevan, Rohr, BE) and notable individuals.

TheNorseEagle (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I would support that split, making UTAS the history page and Collins Aerospace about the new company. We have used that approach with many similar articles, such as Cessna and Textron Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I've seen far too many merged articles lose all their data because it gets edited out over time as "no longer being relevant". Markvs88 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the technical know-how to make the split/new page, but if someone is up for it; by all means.

My thoughts were have UTAS and RC remain separate pages tracking each heritage co's history, and a new Collins page to track the new co. Happy to help and provide further content-related details.

TheNorseEagle (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - UTAS only existed for 6 years, so has little of its own history to tell. These ever-growing conglomerates really don't exist long enough to warrant separate articles on each incarnation. (In the Textron Aviation case, both Beechcraft and Cessna have decades long separate histories.) Note that this article was originally the Hamilton Sundstrand article, and was moved to UTAS. Almost immediately,a UTAS employee recreated the Hamilton Sundstrand article. In that case, Hamilton Sundstrand had existed for 12 years, so had a little more history to keep. Even so, I wouldn't oppose merging it in with this article even now. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry new to this talk stuff... so not sure I am doing this right, but.... Collins Aerospace was founded as a separate legal entity in 2018. Predecessor is UTC Aerospace and Rockwell from which it came into being --Hamilton Sundstrand, Goodrich, etc. were from UTC aerospace prior to formation of Collins Aerospace, NOT Collins aerospace Remove all of the UTC alone... We're talking about Collins Aerospace only... UTC aerospace is gone now. Number of employees of Collins Aerospace is 70,000 period. Recommend splitting pages and cross-referencing. Treat Collins Aerospace as new page, update industries, description, etc. (my edits were rejected when I tried to do this), Note that Rockwell Collins and UTC Aerospace were merged to create Collins Aerospace (but link to Rockwell Collins and UTC Aerospace pages). Let the Rockwell Collins and UTC aerospace pages reference their own predecessors such as Hamilton Sundstrang, Goodrich, etc. This makes it a LOT cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.229.98 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: This is a big mess. It really shouldn't have been moved to its current title. UTAS was, as others have mentioned, a predecessor, not just an old name. I think it should be split at 865273181 - everything before that should be on UTC Aerospace Systems and everything after on this one. (Disclosure: I'm currently a contractor at Collins, but all of the edits to/about this page are on my own time and not paid in any way.) – Frood (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed long enough and there is general support for a split. If you want to take it on and give it a try that would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflicting information

This source states that Collins Aerospace is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. This source states that the Charlotte location is the mechanical systems division, and that the executive offices are in West Palm Beach, Florida. Which one should be used?

I'm leaning toward the latter, as the first link is from an older site and Collins Aerospace's official website links to the latter (when clicking on "locations" from here).

Macsarcule, you may be interested in this. Thtatithticth (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worth checking out the collinsaerospace.com site for their current location information under contacts: https://www.collinsaerospace.com/contacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macsarcule (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, I think that's the best option as it explicitly uses the word "headquarters". Thtatithticth (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)