Content deleted Content added
Fix cite date error |
Restored revision 1155054004 by 2001:14BA:4664:2900:8427:4EF8:A1B9:F1D0 (talk): Remove apparent spam citations with no connection to the article |
||
Line 92:
Following are Texas, [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Arizona]] and [[Colorado]].<ref name=PwCsep2018/>
In the US, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and [[NASA]] are the two biggest consumers of aerospace technology and products.
{{more citations needed|section|date=January 2023}}
Line 110:
Several consolidations took place in the aerospace and defense industries over the last few decades.
[[BAE Systems]] is the successor company to numerous British aircraft manufacturers which merged throughout the second half of the 20th century. Many of these mergers followed the [[1957 Defence White Paper]].
[[Airbus]] prominently illustrated the European airliner manufacturing consolidation in the late 1960s.<ref name=AvWeek12jul2018/>
Line 154:
|}
The
Airbus gets a new, efficient model at the lower end of the [[narrowbody]] market which provides the bulk of [[airliner]] profits and can abandon the slow selling [[Airbus A319|A319]] while Bombardier benefits from the growth in this expanded market even if it holds a smaller residual stake.<!--<ref name=AvWeek18oct2017/>-->
Boeing could forge a similar alliance with either [[Embraer]] with its [[E-jet E2]] or [[Mitsubishi Heavy Industries]] and its [[Mitsubishi Regional Jet|MRJ]].<ref name=AvWeek18oct2017>{{cite news |url= http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-c-series-deal-ends-aerospace-status-quo |title= Opinion: C Series Deal Ends Aerospace Status Quo |date= Oct 18, 2017 |author= Jerrold T. Lundquist |work= Aviation Week & Space Technology}}</ref>
|