SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two companies that supply parts to the likes of Boeing, Airbus, and Lockheed Martin will merge in one of the largest aerospace deals ever:
United Technologies Corp. agreed to buy Rockwell Collins Inc. for about $23 billion, creating an aerospace behemoth that can outfit jetliners and warplanes from tip to tail.
The transaction, one of the biggest in aviation history, creates an aircraft-parts giant better positioned to withstand the squeeze from planemakers Boeing Co. and Airbus SE for pricing discounts and higher output. The resulting company will boast a broad suite of products for commercial aircraft, from Rockwell Collins's touchscreen cockpit displays to jet engines made by the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies.
"This is a significant deal for UTC and the aviation industry in general," Hans Weber, president of San Diego-based consultancy Tecop International Inc., said in an email. By buying Rockwell Collins, which delivers avionics systems for the U.S. planemaker's 787, "UTC becomes a critically important supplier to Boeing and will have a strong negotiating position as Boeing is putting price pressure on suppliers."
The deal is $23 billion, or $30 billion including debt. The combined company is expected to have annual sales of $34 billion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @04:34PM (7 children)
Corporations are doing an end-run, soon some small company will explode on the world as it reveals that it owns 95% of everything. The one world gov everyone is so afraid of will be implemented in the WORST way possible.
Hooray!
Now to convince my friends and family that I'm totally fine and not at all depressed about this world turning to shit, hrrmmm
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @05:48PM (1 child)
Start gathering up financial, or material resources and plan your escape.
The first path will be to the sea. The second to space. The time and opportunities to do either are limited. The dominion takes are coming to strip away your rights, just like they have to every frontier to have existed.
But if even a few thousand chose to leave that would be a start. A few hundred thousand, including some of the smarted minds, could build what is required to defend themselves, even against the might of something like the Navy.
You make it to a few million and you are positioned to start taking other people's stuff.
Tens of millions and you can occupy territories... starting down a dark path.
Hundreds of millions... well you've returned to being the problem.
The tech is out there. The legal loopholes are out there. Now enough disenfranchised people need to get 'out there' to make a difference. Sociopolitical chance isn't going to happen from inside the system anymore. Burning it down won't make a difference either. The only thing you can do is gather us people with a similiar vision for an ideal world and go build it somewhere their jurisdiction doesn't normally extend, then propagandize why your place is better than theirs, assuming you want normies from the failing authoritarian societies you left behind to come and contaminate what you've built.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 06 2017, @08:14PM
*You can always check out, but you can never leave*
Back on topic. This merger shouldn't be allowed to happen, for all the obvious reasons already stated elsewhere. It's a bad deal for everybody outside the club.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 06 2017, @07:02PM (4 children)
The moment the corporations acquired the right to free speech and to legally express that unlimited speech with their cash, the great USA experiment was doomed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 06 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)
That is totally irrelevant. Speech is speech. It can't compel anything. If you don't like what's being said, change the channel, or turn off the set.
This merger, on the other hand, it's not good. Read the other comments for reasons why
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 06 2017, @08:38PM
Dang! I just commented on the Voyager records, without realizing how much farther out my mind would have wandered, had I gone from you to my actual point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
You're being pedantic and narrow minded. Corporations are not people, and should not be afforded such protections under the law. Granting person-hood to businesses has royally fucked up everything.
For political campaigns specifically I think we should create a web based platform which is the only place politicians can campaign. No more million dollar+ ads, no more private campaign funds, level the playing field.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 06 2017, @09:54PM
Sorry, the 1st amendment says otherwise. Since speech as no compelling force, you don't have a case.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheSouthernDandy on Wednesday September 06 2017, @05:21PM
Well sign me up! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 06 2017, @05:31PM (2 children)
Working in the aerospace sector I've seen this happening for a while. Small or unheard of aerospace companies worth hundreds of millions or billions are all buying each other up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
Maybe they're trying to consolidate so that the next breakthrough will be easily patented and controlled.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 06 2017, @07:23PM
Consolidation for market control. The more little guys you buy, the less resources are available to your competitor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @06:51PM
The fewer competitors there are, the more service and prices suck. Been that way forever, per railroads, cars, telecoms, chips, OS's, social networks, etc. Some use the "economies of scale" argument, but it's usually exaggerated. Multiple companies can combine resources for difficult tech if and when needed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday September 06 2017, @07:24PM
The US government, and specifically the Department of Defense, would be ill served if this merger went through (as might a number of other governments).
The reason is that they can get lower costs by putting items out for bid. The fewer bidders, the higher prices (on average) they will pay.
You can be as cynical as you want on whether there's a military industrial complex out there trying to siphon off as much taxpayer money as they want, and that being the point of the merger. But purely from the government side (the government that would actually need to approve the merger for it to happen) this is clearly a bad deal. We'll learn a lot by how the regulatory review of this merger plays out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday September 06 2017, @07:31PM (2 children)
Translation: they can charge their customers more than a free market would allow. And remember, the customer is you (as a passenger and as a taxpayer).
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 07 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)
I'm not convinced the decision makers care if the price goes up. Boeing and Airbus are already massively subsidised by taxpayers (jobs) so if the aircraft become more expensive, people will still have those jobs.
The military also does not matter, as the only customer for those products are taxpayers.
I don't think there has ever really been any sort of free market for aircraft, both the US and the EU are too invested in having a local aircraft industry.
Of course that just helps me get cheaper travel, as my tax money does not have to prop up an unprofitable aircraft industry.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday September 07 2017, @03:20PM
I'm having trouble following your insane troll logic. How exactly do you get cheaper travel when nobody cares if the price goes up? How does having lots of small "local" flight providers make for a less free market than a handful of global carriers? How is your tax money not propping up an industry that is "already massively subsidised by taxpayers"?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?