Talk:Hawker Beechcraft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hawker Beechcraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Aviation: Aircraft This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I agree, but it should probably be done as a move, so as to retain the edit history of the

]

The new name is official, per the press releases. Yes, what we should probably do is move the other page here and merge this content into it. But the deal is not final yet and so for now they should be separate pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 26, 2007 at approximately 10:40 a.m. central time, the transfer is official. The name is Hawker Beechcraft. It was never discussed that any other name be used. They should be separate articles with connecting links.

Thanks. Honestly I can see both side on the articbale merge. Content-wise it makes sense, and it is still the same company, just with new owners. However, they are separate entities, and have unique histories. As it stands, this article is basically a renamed Raytheon Aircraft article. Both have the potential for greater expansion. -

BillCJ 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Fully Support - After re-reading the Raytheon AIrcraft article, I see that that company was actually formed in 1994 when Raytheon merged Beechcraft (owned from 1980) with its newly acquired Hawker asset. There is an article on Raytheon itself, so both these articles are really very complimentary. Separate pages for Beechcraft and Hawker still exist, so nothing is really lost by merging them. A similar article,
  BillCJ

I wonder if there should also be a mention and link to the "Hawker Aircraft" article as Hawker was maintained by Raytheon. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Aircraft “The Hawker legacy was maintained by the American company Raytheon who produced business jets (including some derived from the BAe 125, whose original design dated back to de Havilland days) under the "Hawker" name. This was the result of purchasing British Aerospace's product line in 1993. The name is currently used by Hawker Beechcraft after Raytheon's business jet interests (Hawker and Beechcraft) were acquired by investors and merged together.” It just seems that the article could benefit from more clarity on the role of Raytheon and Hawker in terms of the merge with Beechcraft.

I agree that should be better clarified - let me see what I can do there, with Hawker Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added some words to the first para of the history section - see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that in the portion "following the takeover the BAe 125-800 and BAe 125-1000 were renamed Hawker 800 and Hawker 1000 respectively" are more product specific and are irrelevant to this company overview section. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could argue that is relevant that the company renamed their leading products, but if you think it is too small a detail we can remove it and let the aircraft type articles deal with that issue. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good on both accounts. I think it makes much more sense on both of the pages. Thanks for your help and guidance. Ericacenci (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Ericacenci[reply]

I'd like to update the current state of the Hawker Beechcraft page with additional historic information to accurately reflect the company's history and update out of date information. I've declared my conflict of interest here and would like the editor to review my suggested edits.

The first thing I'd like to update is the number of employees stated. Currently, there are 6,600 employees at HBC. The 7,000 listed right now is not accurate. Here is the reference. If you need another third party reference, I can supply that. Career Builder page

I don't have a problem with updating the employee number but the page you have cited doesn't give a number. The "company facts" page linked from there says 8000 employees, but the website is so strangely organized for URLs that the page can't be cited on its own. Do you have a ref that says 6600? - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Will this link suffice for the number of employees? HBC Investor Relations Ericacenci (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine as a ref, but it says the company has 8000 employees! Is it out of date? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Can we differentiate the numbers by location? Perhaps something like "Employees 8000 Worldwide; 6300 U.S. Headquarters (2010)". Ericacenci (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that will work - I have gone ahead and added that with the ref, see what you think! - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following historical points should be added to truly reflect the history of Hawker Beechcraft since the new company formed in 2006. As of yet, there is little information provided on the details of events that have occurred. I'd like to make sure this is accurate and presented/cited correctly before I proceed with additional suggestions.

Please see the following suggestions to add under the Company History section and incorporate with the existing content in this section. Thanks for your help! Ericacenci (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this information below predates the formation of Hawker Beechcraft, don't you think it more properly belongs in the Beechcraft or Raytheon articles, rather than here? It isn't really Hawker Beechcraft history. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more appropriate to label this section as Company Founding vs. Company Reorganization as we consider all of these events to have led to the founding of HBC. I wasn't sure of the best way to label it but I think it fits along with the first paragraph under History "On February 8, 1980, Beech Aircraft Corporation..." especially since the aircraft we're mentioning are manufactured today by HBC. Also if we label it "Founding", we could place these historical/evolutionary elements there, and then build out a Historical Timeline with subsections like 2006-2009, 2010-etc. Does this logistically work better? Ericacenci (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I think it is too much detail prior to the company actually being created in 2006 for this article. I still think if it belongs anywhere it would be in the articles for Beechcraft or Raytheon. The general organization of these aircraft manufacturer articles is to have a history section although it can have subsections with headings if that is required for clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company Reorganization 1994-September 11th 2001

In April of 1995, the company's new $10 million, 100,000-square-foot administration building opened in Wichita, Kansas. ^[1]

In September of 1995, Raytheon Aircraft introduced two new aircraft, the light jet Premier 1 and the Hawker 800XP, which represented the first update to the Hawker line since its acquisition by Raytheon Company.

1997 featured several milestones for Raytheon Aircraft. In June 1997, the company announced the formation of Raytheon Travel Air, an aircraft fractional ownership company featuring the Hawker 800XP, the Beechjet 400A and the King Air B200^[2]. That same year the company celebrated the 50th year of continuous production on the single-engine Bonanza series^[3].

On May 30, 2001, James E. Schuster was named Chairman and CEO of Raytheon Aircraft, succeeding Hansel Tookes, who becomes President of Raytheon International Inc^[4].

Company Timeline

2006-2009

On March 26, 2007, Hawker Beechcraft Inc. finalized the purchase of Raytheon Aircraft Company from Raytheon Company. Hawker Beechcraft Inc. is a new company formed by the Canadian investment firm

This reads fine, is it your intention to just replace the current sentence "On December 21, 2006, Raytheon reported that it had signed an agreement to sell Raytheon Aircraft to Hawker Beechcraft Inc., a company owned by GS Capital Partners, an affiliate of Goldman Sachs, and Onex Corporation. The sale did not include Flight Options or Raytheon Airline Aviation Services (RAAS). The partnership paid $3.3 billion in a bid announced on December 21, 2006 and completed on March 26, 2007" with this or add it as an additional sentence? - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was to replace that sentence. Also, your comment above about having too much background information prior to founding makes sense, will make those suggestions elsewhere. I'd like to also suggest the following content, titles and format for consideration to help with the organization and clarity of the overall history section. I've used the existing page content to show where it would make the most sense to insert the new suggestions, as well as the approved sentence replacement just discussed (above). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs)

Thanks for posting this here first. In general most of the information is useful, but it isn't written in the sort of of language that we use in the encyclopedia, it sounds like it was written as a press release by the company PR dept with things like "The American Bonanza Society conjointly held their annual convention at Beech Field, flying in nearly 350 Bonanza and Barons to celebrate" and "...aimed at teaching technicians how to create safer flying conditions". Let me rework it into

WP:NPOV encyclopedia wording and post a new version below yours and you can see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I understand your point. Appreciate the feedback. I'll check back in a bit for your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note in the history section, I think the section subhead of "Financial Crisis of 2007-2010" should be "Financial Crisis" there is no clear reason to date this particular section as its in the body copy. Let me know your thoughts on that. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me work on a new draft here. Actually the title of the article dealing with what was originally the Financial Crisis of 2008 is now

Late-2000s recession, so the titling should probably be closer to that and link to that article, let me re-title it in the article and you can see what you think. Because of sufficient refs available and its impact on the aerospace industry, just about all aircraft manufacturers have sections on this period in history. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, makes sense. I also uploaded the new logo, but didn't post it to the page. Let me know if this is something you can assist with as well. Thank you!! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HawkerBeechcraftLogo.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you don't have to post it to the page - it automatically replaces the existing logo there. If you check the article it should be there. If the old one is still showing then hit F5 to refresh the page and it should show up! As long as you are happy with the second draft below then will move it into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks good. Let's post it! Also, saw the note about citation 19/20 - why aren't those useable - do I need to find a different source. Thanks for the logo post as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilborneOne is a senior admin on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, we work together often on pages and I value his opinion - he is just questioning whether those two items are significant enough to include in the history of the company. I thought so, but others may disagree, in which case we discuss here to find a consensus on the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 8, 1980, Beech Aircraft Corporation became a subsidiary of Raytheon Company. In August 1993, Raytheon Company acquired British Aerospace Corporate Jets (producers of the midsized British Aerospace BAe 125 line) from British Aerospace and renamed the company Raytheon Corporate Jets; following the takeover the BAe 125-800 and BAe 125-1000 were renamed Hawker 800 and Hawker 1000 respectively.[4] In mid-September 1994, Beech Aircraft Corporation and Raytheon Corporate Jets were merged to form Raytheon Aircraft.[5]

Company Reorganization 2002-2006

In early 2002, Raytheon announced at the National Business Aviation Association Trade Show the return of the Hawker and Beechcraft brands. On Jan. 20, 2004, Raytheon Aircraft celebrated the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the Beechcraft King Air. The original Beechcraft King Air Model 90 lifted off from Beech Field in Wichita on this date. ^[1] Later that same year, the Hellenic Air Force used T-6A’s to conduct air patrols, protecting the skies over the 2004 Summer Olympics held in Greece. ^[2]

Ending months of industry speculation, Raytheon announced in July 2006 that it intended to sell its money-losing aircraft manufacturing business in an effort to focus on core defense related divisions. Bidders for the company included The Carlyle Group, Cerberus Capital Management and Onex Corporation.[6]

On October 3, 2006, at a ceremony in Little Rock, Ark., Raytheon Aircraft Company broke ground on a $16.3-million, 112,000-square-foot facility expansion to support completions of the Hawker 4000. A new 54,000-square foot hangar bay was part of the expansion, as well as extensions of back portions of existing buildings providing additional woodshop, upholstery, sheet metal and storage space. ^[3]

In March 26, 2007, Hawker Beechcraft Inc. finalized the purchase of Raytheon Aircraft Company from Raytheon Company. Hawker Beechcraft Inc. is a new company formed by the Canadian investment firm

2007-2009

2007 marked the 75th anniversary of Beechcraft. The American Bonanza Society conjointly held their annual convention at Beech Field, flying in nearly 350 Bonanza and Barons to celebrate. [5]

2007 also marked the 60th anniversary of the Beechcraft Bonanza, which remains the longest running production line of all time. Birthdaybonanza.^[6]

Throughout 2007 and 2008, Hawker Beechcraft increased their overseas expansion efforts. On October 25, 2007, HBC officially opened its new aerospace manufacturing facility in Chihuahua, Mexico. ^[7]

2010-Present

Working with Flight Safety International in early 2010, Hawker Beechcraft announced the grand opening of its 44,000 sq. ft. Maintenance Learning Center, aimed at teaching technicians how to create safer flying conditions. ^[8]

On March 26, 2010, Hawker Beechcraft appointed Hawker Pacific Singapore as its first authorized service center (ASC) for the Hawker 4000. With the authorization, Hawker Pacific became the first ASC in Southeast Asia. ^[9] In the same week, W. W. Boisture Jr., Chairman and CEO of Hawker Beechcraft was named to the board of directors for Corporate Angel, which arranges free transportation to treatment for cancer patients using empty seats of corporate aircraft. It arranges more than 200 patient flights to treatment every month.^[10]

On February 8, 1980, Beech Aircraft Corporation became a subsidiary of Raytheon Company. In August 1993, Raytheon Company acquired British Aerospace Corporate Jets, producers of the midsized British Aerospace BAe 125 line, from British Aerospace and renamed the company Raytheon Corporate Jets. Following the takeover the BAe 125-800 and BAe 125-1000 were renamed Hawker 800 and Hawker 1000 respectively.[4] In mid-September 1994, Beech Aircraft Corporation and Raytheon Corporate Jets were merged to form Raytheon Aircraft.[5]

In early 2002, Raytheon announced at the National Business Aviation Association Trade Show the return of the Hawker and Beechcraft brands after having marketed them all as Raytheon aicraft.^[1]

Ending months of industry speculation, Raytheon announced in July 2006 that it intended to sell its money-losing aircraft manufacturing business in an effort to focus on core defense related divisions. Bidders for the company included The Carlyle Group, Cerberus Capital Management and Onex Corporation.[6]

On October 3, 2006, Raytheon Aircraft Company commenced a US$16.3-million, 112,000-square-foot facility expansion for Hawker 4000 completion work in Little Rock, Arkansas. The expansion included a new 54,000-square foot hangar bay, as well as extensions to existing buildings to provide additional woodshop, upholstery, sheet metal and storage space.^[2]

On March 26, 2007, Hawker Beechcraft finalized the purchase of Raytheon Aircraft Company from

2007 marked the 75th anniversary of Beechcraft and the 60th anniversary of the Beechcraft Bonanza, which is the longest running production line of all time.^[4][5]

In 2007 and 2008 the company increased its overseas expansion efforts. On October 25, 2007, HBC officially opened a new aerospace manufacturing facility in

In early 2010 the company, in partnership with Flight Safety International, opened a 44,000 sq. ft. Maintenance Learning Center, for technician training.^[8]

Just a comment the opening of a service center in SE asia, and the ceation of a training center do not appear to be particularly notable or unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left them in in the redraft while cleaning out some trivia, but do you think they are too trivial for the article? - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think they should be included. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that is one against. I assume User:Ericacenci is in favour of leaving them in, since he or she suggested it, and I am kind of on the fence as to whether they should be in there or not. Any other opinions? - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to comment again - most aircraft manufacturers have training facilities for aircrew and maintainer trainining we would need to know why this is any different to the norm. Same goes about an opening of just one authorised service centre why is the Hawker 4000 and in particular this service centre any different to all the other hundreds of service centres for lots of different types. I suspect Hawker Pacific is not different and probably looking at the website adding the Hawker 4000 to an already large portfolio doesnt appear notable to them either. I suspect they are both come into the

WP:NOTNEWS categoryMilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are all good questions - let's see if User:Ericacenci has any thoughts on them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. My main argument to keep this is that this location was a first entry into Southeast Asia for HBC.I think its helpful to see what growth and expansion takes place for the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Question on the following citation/sentence: "Ending months of industry speculation, Raytheon announced in July 2006 that it intended to sell its money-losing aircraft manufacturing business in an effort to focus on core defense related divisions. Bidders for the company included The Carlyle Group, Cerberus Capital Management and Onex Corporation.[6]" -- the article quoted from the New York Times does not mention anything about "its money-losing aircraft manufacturing business" rather it states that "Raytheon announced in July that it was considering selling its Raytheon Aircraft division, based in Wichita, Kan., to focus on its core military and technology businesses." I feel that the article should be changed to reflect that. Do you agree or is there another reference where this particular description is stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.50.162 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the above suggestion, but was not signed in-apologies. Ericacenci (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Ericacenci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacenci (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - also if you sign your talk page entries here by putting ~~~~ after your entry it will automatically sign your name and the date and time of your entry. It saves the bots chasing you ;).

Yes you are quite right, the ref doesn't indicate it was money-losing, so that should go, and I will remove it. if someone finds a ref supporting that it can go back in then. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ericacenci (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Ericacenci[reply]

Thanks for uploading that new version of the company logo - looks better! - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil

There are two Hawker products that do not have Wikipedia articles (or they are not linked in this article).

The Hawker 900XP - was redirected to the Hawker 800 article. Shouldn't there be its own page for this and a link to the product on this page? The specifications for the model are here: http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/hawker/900xp/specifications.aspx and I can find additional sources, if needed.

This is also the case for the Hawker 750. I believe there should be a link to these two products in this particular HBC article as they are both seperate jets. Source: http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/hawker/750/specifications.aspx Again, let me know if I need to supply additional information/sources on each unit to help build the content for each respective article.

King Air 350 -- The current iteration of this the King Air 350i. Is there a way to reflect that in this article? Or have this edited as King Air 350i? http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcraft/king_air_350i/specifications.aspx Let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks! Ericacenci (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)EricaCenci[reply]

I had a look though these types and have added specific links to them. On Wikipedia we don't generally have new article pages for sub-variants of other aircraft and the Beechcraft King Air 350i is covered in the Beechcraft Super King Air article while the 750 and 900XP are variants of the Hawker 800 and are described in that article. If you think more could be said about them then additional text and refs could be added to those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if that additional information causes the specific variant's coverage to dominate the article, then a split would be warranted. Another consideration is Specs, since we usually only have specs for one variant in non-airliner articles. If the varints differ to the point that covering the specs in the main text is not sufficient, then considering a split is also warranted. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the add. I think that is great and understand your points. I'll review and see if there is anything else to add to the article and will review the specs to see how that might look. Thanks again Ericacenci (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-6 Ute/U-21 Ute and T-34 Mentor were removed as they were built by Beech, not Hawker Beechcraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroweanie (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. In future please indicate why you are doing things in the edit summary, it is the box right above the "submit" button. If you remove text and don't add an edit summary as explanation some editors may mistake your edits for vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particularly reason why those two have been removed as some of the other Beechcraft products built before 2006 have not been removed for example the Baron? MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baron is still in production today. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood all the others have been produced since 2006. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following are links that you can use to improve the article:

• "Hawker Beechcraft bankruptcy plan outlines 3 options"; The Wichita-Eagle; June 17, 2012. --- • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Historical look at Hawker Beechcraft (photos)"; The Wichita-Eagle; June 17, 2012. --- • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now seems clear from the bankruptcy proceedings that the company will soon be renamed Beechcraft Corporation, but will be a much smaller company, with fewer employees and no jet line. I am not sure whether we should rename this article or tie this one up at the end of the bankruptcy and start a new article at

]

I'm not certain either. This article also covers the time that the company was "Raytheon Aircraft". I don't think we need a new article for "Beechcraft Corporation", so moving this page to that title is one option. Another option is tie tie this one up, but to just use the main Beechcraft page, especially since the new, smaller company will mainly be concerned with the Beechcraft products. - BilCat (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all possibilities! It looks like it will be early in the new year before the company emerges from bankruptcy and is renamed, so I think we have a little time to decide yet. Whatever we decide we will have to tie in the Beechcraft article one way or the other. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts yet on how to handle the restructuring? I'm still undecided, but leaning towards tying this one up, and handling the new company at the main Beechcraft article. - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That solution does make sense. We would have to write some "bridge" text there to explain things, but it could be done fairly easily. I think my previous idea of a new article at

Beechcraft Corporation made a redirect to Beechcraft. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like that day has arrived! The bankruptcy exit is today. I have updated the article text and added a ref, although it needs some serious clean up and consolidation now. I am thinking that the previous idea of sewing up this article at this event and continuing the story at

Beechcraft Corporation should become a redirect to Beechcraft. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Works for me. - BilCat (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't mind working on this article, if you are interested in taking the story forward in

Beechcraft Corporation is now redirected to Beechcraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've updated the infobox, and tried to expand the lead, but the main text still needs a paragraph on the banruptcy. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Thanks for your work here in figuring out what to do at the end of the bankruptcy. - Ahunt (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207144459/http://www.forbes.com:80/feeds/ap/2009/02/03/ap6003135.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/03/ap6003135.html

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.—

]

- Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026103529/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/03/26/afx3552267.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/03/26/afx3552267.html

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

}}).

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.—

]

Reverted, the link is "404", as are all the other archives. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026103529/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/03/26/afx3552267.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/03/26/afx3552267.html

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

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (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.—

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hawker Beechcraft. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519161459/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/include/content_view.aspx?id=14117 to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/include/content_view.aspx?id=14117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728184408/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/include/content_view.aspx?id=11779l to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/include/content_view.aspx?id=11779l
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929001648/http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/61507312.html to http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/61507312.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121013105/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/ to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121013105/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/ to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624215039/http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/avmfg/default.asp?avmfg=beechcraft to http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/avmfg/default.asp?avmfg=beechcraft
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ka100aviation.org/

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.

}} (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) 16:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker Beechcraft. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818104138/http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/investor_relations/faq/ to http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/investor_relations/faq/

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.

}} (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) 11:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]