Talk:RTX Corporation

Proposing Merge with United Technologies

United Technologies Corporation was renamed to Raytheon Technologies Corporation after the merge of its subsidiary Light Merger Sub Corp. with Raytheon Company. Raytheon Technologies Corporation is not a new company: "On April 3, 2020, Raytheon Technologies Corporation (formerly known as United Technologies Corporation) (the “Company” or “RTC”) issued a press release announcing the completion of the Merger (as defined below) contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 9, 2019, and amended as of March 9, 2020, by and among the Company, Light Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and Raytheon Company, a Delaware corporation (“Raytheon”), pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Raytheon (the “Merger”), with Raytheon surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. In connection with the Merger, the Company’s name was changed to Raytheon Technologies Corporation and its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “RTX.”"

D00kSI (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge - The merger is considered a "merger of equals", not an acquisition. Legally, they chose to keep It as UTC, but in all practicality, they are different companies. UTC included Carrier and Otis, which were spun off before the merger. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not certain how you evaluate whether the company is the same or not but Raytheon Technologies Corporation has the same IRS Number 06-0570975 as United Technologies Corporation had. This makes them legally the same entity. The merged entities were Light Merger Sub Corp (a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation) and Raytheon Company (a different company) with Raytheon Company as the surviving company. As a result, Raytheon Company became a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. The latter was then renamed to Raytheon Technologies Corporation (that why it is formerly known as United Technologies Corporation). D00kSI (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

None of this is unusual. There generally is a nominal survivor in mergers, even of equals. Yet for Wikipedia's purposes, we often cover the merged incarnation separately. Even then, it's on a case by case basis. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no merger here that would directly involve United Technologies Corporation as an entity. What was merged was a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation named Light Merger Sub Corp. with and into Raytheon Company. United Technologies Corporation then just changed its name to Raytheon Technologies Corporation. In terms of United Technologies Corporation it was just a name change, no merger of any kind, especially not equals. It was just a way to acquire Raytheon Company via a merger with its subsidiary. This is reported in detail in several official filings and it isn't a matter of perspective: In the filings it is clear that there was no merger of equals here despite calling it so: "On April 3, 2020, following the completion of the Separation Transactions and the Distributions, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 9, 2019, as amended, UTC and Raytheon Company (Raytheon) completed their previously announced all-stock merger of equals transaction (the Raytheon Merger). Upon closing of the Raytheon Merger, Raytheon Company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of UTC, which changed its name to “Raytheon Technologies Corporation.”"

So Raytheon becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary and both companies survive the so-called "merger of equals" while a new company should be formed in it to be truly a merger of equals. If there is a nominal survivor then it is not a merger of equals. A merger of equals is when two firms of about the same size come together to form a single new company. Mergers are rarely a true merger of equals. More often, one company indirectly purchases another company and allows the target company to call it a merger to maintain its reputation. When an acquisition occurs in this way, the purchasing company can acquire the target company using all stock, all cash, or a combination of both. . The concept of "merger of equals" is here, like in most merger cases which are actually pure acquisitions, just a false public image.

That is also why the company still has the same Taxpayer Identification Number 06-0570975 , the same LEI number I07WOS4YJ0N7YRFE7309 , and the same SEC CIK number 0000101829 as United Technologies Corporation. We can also see the following: "Other Entity Names: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION" , "Company Names / Stock Symbols: UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP /DE/ .

So Wikipedia is very often inventing new organizations due to false/pretense media announcements of the merger of equals, while in fact, they are mostly pure acquisitions. This does not hold any legal or business ground. D00kSI (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, none of this is unusual. There generally is a nominal survivor in mergers, even of equals. Yet for Wikipedia Wikipedia's purposes, we often cover the merged incarnation separately. Even then, it's on a case by case basis. I've seen nothing here from reliable, published, secondary sources to change that. BilCat (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Which sources are we talking about? Did you check the company filings which have to be accurate and are from the company itself? It would make sense if you would provide valid arguments with valid first-hand sources to back it up. Not opposing without any real ground. D00kSI (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The published secondary sources in the article. Using primary sources the way you are is basically original research and synthesis. BilCat (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. So the secondary sources in the article count over proper research and logical legal synthesis in Wikipedia? I see now why the Wikipedia articles on organizations are so unreliable. Eating up the rubbish the news media is filling you up with no actual legal background is certainly the way to go.

"Effective immediately, as a result of its merger with Raytheon Company, United Technologies Corporation’s legal name and address will change as follows: Raytheon Technologies Corporation, 870 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451-1449. Additionally, Raytheon Company has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies Corporation." If you can please just explain how in a "merger of equals" one company becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of the other I will rest my case eternally? D00kSI (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can cite reliable published sources which did the "proper research and logical legal synthesis" about this specific situation, I've no problem with including that in the article as a brief explanation of the actual legal procedure used in performing the merger. But that's not going to change my support for keeping the articles separate. They are effectively two separate companies, are composed of different divisions, and best treated by separately articles. If you continue trying to win arguments by insults (you probably know the proper logical or legal term for that, whatever it is), that's your choice. But unless several other editors support your view and achieve a consensus, the articles won't be merged. BilCat (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

What to do with RIS & RMD becoming Raytheon

With RIS and RMD being reorganized to become a single Raytheon entity under the RTX portfolio, we'll want to figure out to do with the article structure. RIS and RMD articles are both a little sparse, so it seems questionable to keep them both as standalone articles while creating a new "Raytheon" article. Perhaps we resurrect the Raytheon Company article and note that it is effectively operating as a subsidiary of RTX these days? Or perhaps merge the RIS and RMD articles together? I don't feel strongly one way or the other. TheNorseEagle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that too, and I'm also not sure what the best solution is. However, I don't think resurrecting the old Raytheon Company article would work, as they are really separate entities, and merging them into one article is just too confusing, in my opinion. I've started working on a draft at Draft:Raytheon for wherever the final article ends up. I'm leaning towards making a new article, either at Raytheon or a disambiguated title, such as "Raytheon (division)", but I'm open to merging the RIS and RMD articles too, and moving one of them to the final title. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish this page hadn't been moved without discussion. RTX isn't recognizable. Raytheon Technologies or Raytheon Technologies Corporation would be better. Schierbecker (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I held off moving it myself, but the name is already being used in publications. In most cases, corporate name changes are performed almost immediately, as they will be used in reliable sources from then on. RTX has been used as the company's stock ticker since it was formed 3 years ago, so it's arguable whether or not it's already recognizable. I think this is one of those areas where our guidelines don't quite reflect reality, and IAR applies. In other cases, like city name changes, the new name takes much longer to catch on, and so the guideline works. BilCat (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is one thing that is unclear: Did the company actually change its legal name, or is this solely an outward facing rebrand? Also, is a legal name change in the pipeline, if it's not changed as of now? This source uses the term "rebrand", but the article reads as if it's a wholesale name change. @Adrianwo: you changed the title in the lead back to "Raytheon Technologies Corporation". Do you have some insight on this question? BilCat (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And it seems that the gaming community isn't happy with the rebrand. It also hints that there might be a trademark dispute involved. Curiouser and Curiouser. BilCat (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s a rebrand with a legal entity name change to follow in July.

My two cents in favor of using the current Raytheon company page for the RTX Raytheon business: this latest RTX change has the effect of making the UTC-Raytheon merge less of a “merger of equals,” and more a “Raytheon is a sub of UTC-now-RTX. Originally, RTX was four units: two Raytheon and two UTC. The two Raytheon businesses continued to operate under the single legal entity “Raytheon Company.” The two business are now being consolidated into a single Raytheon, continuing to operate as the legal entity it did pre-merger — the only difference is that now, Raytheon Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of RTX (and RTX is the legal entity that was, pre-merger, UTC). Perhaps that’s all a bit too legal-entity focused, but not sure if it makes sense to have four separate pages for pre-merger Raytheon, RMD, RMS, and the RTX Raytheon subsidiary. The underlying business and legal entity of all four businesses/pages are essentially the same. TheNorseEagle (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. It would help to have sources for all that, especially for the legal change in July (just a few days from now). BilCat (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not much public facing, unfortunately. Though I suspect the entity rename will have some publicly-available sources once it takes effect.

As for the internal legal structuring of the Raytheon businesses, that might take a bit more time. I'll poke around and see what I can find. TheNorseEagle (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't caught wind of an entity change to RTX yet. As far as the internal entity structure, that's primarily a internal matter and I can't find any good public sources — but slide 14 of this deck indicates that, aside from a few product line switches between Raytheon and Collins, the new Raytheon division is basically just rejoining the two Raytheon operations that were split into RIS & RMD during from April 2020 - June 2023. With those few RTN-Collins switch-ups aside, the Raytheon division is the product lines of the old, pre-merger Raytheon.

That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about whether the new Raytheon segment and old Raytheon Company pages should/should not be separate (though on the margin, some of the content across the two pages might be somewhat redundant). In any event, I'm not sure if we need to continue to have RIS and RMD as separate pages. A three-year, jettisoned attempt to internally run the former Raytheon business as two separate divisions doesn't strike me as warranting of keeping Raytheon Company, RMD, RIS, and Raytheon (division) as separate pages.

In a nutshell, I'd suggest either going down to just two pages (Raytheon Company and Raytheon (division)) or one ("Raytheon"). [To clarify . . . I'm all for keeping "RTX" as a separate page in addition to those. And once I find out more about the entity name change beyond the facial rebranding, I'll report back. TheNorseEagle (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Name has officially changed to "RTX Corporation" as of July 17. See https://investors.rtx.com/node/40741/html TheNorseEagle (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved to RTX Corporation per WP:NCCORP. BilCat (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Raytheon Company which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing about ELF?

Why there is no such info about projects they made in Antarctica. They have large base at South Pole. Doing stuff for US Army there. 77.237.152.18 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

RTX is composed of three divisions, so such a project would be more likely to be covered in one of those articles, or an article on a predecessor of those divisions. Unfortunately, I've never heard of the project, and since you didn't provide any online sources about it, I wouldn't have anywhere to start looking for such info, either on Wikipedia or online. BilCat (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)