Talk:United Aircraft Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Potentially now a page glorifying the Russian dictatorship's flying warmachines. I am ashamed the moderators keep overturning edits to clean up the context and move to current events, and that they don't bother cleaning these themselves. I have largely given up on this and worry they are attracting legal difficulties for themselves. --148.252.146.215 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is quite an important article as this firm will in the mid term future become quite an important player in the aerospace market, as such we ought to keep this article up to date.

--Greg.loutsenko 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article as well as I could, and marked some of the older statements as needing citations. I also changed the abbreviation used in the text to UAC from UABC as UAC seems to be the most current abbreviation in use at the time being. You can verify that by looking at some of the references, as the older ones use UABC while the newer ones use UAC. Is this something that should be mentioned in the article? --Riyaah (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public? Doesn't look like it'll ever be public[edit]

Just glanced on the summary thing on the right side of the article, which gives the impression company will got public in 2007. However, article says that the government will retain at least 75% of stock, so its really not public at all. Traded on a stock exchange, yes, public no. Or at least, its still state-owned.Yarilo2 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If even one share is floated, it is considered publically traded. Them's the rules. It's the same in the U.S. for corporations that are mostly-owned by one organization. For instance, 92% of CNA Financial is owned by Loews Corp., but because 8% of it floats, it is considered public. The material difference isn't in the ownership structure itself — primarily it's the fact that the company now has to disclose its financial information in shareholder reports. Thus, even if the Russian government will own 75% of UABC, the fact that the remaining 25% is floated means that stock exchange reporting rules apply. Got it? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, wouldn't Amtrak also be considered public? Apparently its issued both preffered stock and regular - check the wiki article.

My argument is that the company will always be state-controlled, regardless of whether "even one share is floated", hence the summary is misleading. I'm changing it to be just as true, but not as misleading.Yarilo2 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oak.jpg[edit]

Image:Oak.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the deleted image came from, but I suspect it might be the same as is used on the Russian Wikipedia, [found here]. I don't know russian and don't know the rules for images on wikipedia, but the image seems to have the required copyright information, couldn't it be used here? Or does the russian wikipedia use different rules? Riyaah (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Antonov not part of UABC[edit]

It is true that Antonov is Ukrainian and not part of UABC. However, in the Soviet Union, there was a seperation between the Design Bureau and the production facilities. Several of the factories that produced Antonovs were not in Ukraine but in Russia or Uzbekistan. Sometimes a same factory builds several aircraft of different Manufacturers. The An-38 for example, is built in Novosibirsk, in Chkalov Novosibirsk aviation production plant, the same factory that manufactures Sukhoi SU-32 and SU-34 fighters. The NAPA factory in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, not only built An-12s but also the IL-76s.

So although the Antonov Design Bureau itself is not part of UABC, its very possible that several of the plants that manufacture Antonovs in Russia are.Hudicourt (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SALES. MANUFACTURING[edit]

Can the article add how much in sales and exports will have the UAC so we can compare it to EADS and Boeing, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.120.124 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its civil aircraft branch is similar to Brazil´s Embraer and Canada´s Bombardier with middle-low range products while the military aircraft branch has high tech products at the same level as the best companies in the US and Western Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.241.164 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to MTS[edit]

Currently, the link to MTS leads externally. I guess the article Ilyushin/HAL_Tactical_Transport_Aircraft describes that aircraft. Then the link should be replaced, and the external should be moved to the section "External Links". I'm not sure if I'm right, that's why I'm discussing it here.

Tupolev Tu-154[edit]

Should the Tupolev Tu-154 be included as planes currently under productuon. It still is under "limted production".68.161.205.44 (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonov will become part of UAC[edit]

Ukraine will give Russia 50%+1 of Antonov in exchange for gas discount [1].DVoit 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frigate Ekojet[edit]

THere is a current Wiki page for Friage Ekojet, but it has major issues, and there is flags on the page because there is no links to it. It seems reasonable for 'future projects of UAC' to be on the UAC page, and thereby to link to Frigate Ekojet . I have run into issues with editing the page for Frigate Ekojet, merely trying to remove irrelevant/inaccurate information, if anybody wants to help keep that page up to date, that will be appreciated. new info on EKojet is supposed to be released by next MAKS, but in the meantime hopefully the page can be kept as good as possible, it has been 'warned' for potential deletion if the problems aren't fixed, but my edits seem to be reverted by editors who aren't even actively involved with the page because they felt they were 'random vandalism' or something... Poimonkey (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State Approval[edit]

The Supreme Soviet did not approve United because there was evidence of Obamification (Obamamerkelbushies) in the treasonous dismantling of crucial Soviet infrastructure. Also, Soviet engineering was proven to be superior to United. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.79.22 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Aircraft Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Aircraft Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Aircraft_Corporation&oldid=1212826568"