Talk:TransDigm Group

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TransDigm Group. 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 tag to http://odysseyinvestment.com/index.php?page=news-show&id=6
 * Added tag to http://www.adelwiggins.com/OurCompany.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823140823/http://odysseyinvestment.com/index.php?page=news-show&id=12 to http://odysseyinvestment.com/index.php?page=news-show&id=12
 * Added tag to http://odysseyinvestment.com/index.php?page=news-show&id=4
 * Added tag to http://odysseyinvestment.com/index.php?page=news-show&id=12
 * Added tag to http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=114678&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=385430&highlight=

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Draft
Hi. My name is Jaimie and I work for Transdigm. Pursuant to WP:COI, I would like to share a proposed draft of a reworked version of this page in the hopes that an independent editor will thoughtfully consider part or all of the proposed content.

Compared to the current article, the proposed draft would:
 * address the tags in the history section with a more complete, timely and better-quality history. The draft removes repetition, promotion, trivia, etc. and replaces it with good-quality citations to historical information.


 * add a short two-paragraph Products section that summarizes what the company manufactures.


 * trim unsourced/poorly-sourced controversies and summarize proper secondary sources in the history section per WP:CRITS (this is where I imagine most of the attention being in terms of my COI)

Thank you in advance to any editor that takes a thoughtful, objective look at the proposed draft/changes. Jaimies1234 (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, your page is a good start. With that said, the infobox needs more information.  Therefore, I personally would recommend adding on to the existing article, but not starting over.  I will submit an RfC for this draft. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Jax. Many of the Key People in the infobox of the current page no longer work at Transdigm, which now has 50 subsidiaries (not 15). However, I just now added a few things to the infobox in the draft to make sure nothing was lost from the current page.Jaimies1234 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I do not want to make this decision on my own, hence the RFC below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No need for an RfC at this time, plus what you wrote wasn't actually a correctly-formatted RfC, and as far as I can see we don't have two editors who disagree. See WP:RFCBEFORE

I recommend using the following draft User:Jaimies1234/TDG by Jaimies1234 to add to the TransDigm Group article, but not replace it, and I wanted to gather community input before proceeding. I feel that the infobox should not be reduced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just looked it over, and I recommend replacing most of what what is in the article now with the draft -- but see below. In particular, User:Jaimies1234 did a good job of avoiding promotional /advertising-like language.


 * Before we do the switch, User:Jaimies1234 could you do a few things to the draft?
 * Go to every citation and...
 * Personally verify that the page is still up and that it says what we say it says,
 * Fill in the date and author if there is one. For example, when was the copy of "Transdigm International :Directory of Company Histories" you are citing published?
 * Set the access date to today.
 * Remove the citations in the infobox. Citing that page once or maybe twice in the body is fine.
 * See Template:Cite Web for a good format to use.


 * Good job so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: how much of the following existing sections do we want to retain? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate filings with Department of Defense and "hidden monopoly"
 * Pentagon price-gouging congressional hearing
 * I think that the material sourced to Citron Research should go. Short sellers in general have an inherent COI. and I don;t think Andrew Left is a reliable source.
 * As for the Ro Khanna letter, did it go any farther? If not, I think it is WP:UNDUE.
 * On the other side of the coin, I think the Nick Howley quote is also UNDUE. See Mandy Rice-Davies. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for Jaimies1234 to respond to my suggestions. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look Guy Macon. I've revised the draft as follows:
 * Page numbers, access dates, authors, etc. were added to the references wherever possible.
 * Each citation is now checked again; there was one error where a date was off by one year.
 * The annual report citations for the financials in the infobox were consolidated using the "footnotes" parameter
 * Access dates were updated to today


 * Let me know if there's anything else I can be of assistance with. Jaimies1234 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Updates to "Recent history" section
Hi, I work for TransDigm and have a declared COI. I would like to propose the following updates to the TransDigm Group section:


 * Please change the sentence that says: "It concluded that the Pentagon was purchasing parts from TransDigm at very high profit margins, such as a 9,400% markup on a metal pin." to the following:
 * It concluded that the Pentagon was purchasing parts from TransDigm at very high profit margins, such as a 9,380% markup on a metal pin if calculated as a percentage of manufacturing cost. Using the profit calculation in which profit is measured as a percentage of revenue, profits for the audited parts ranged from 2.4% to 97.1%.

The change from 9,400% to 9,380% is based on the source supplied above, which uses the lower number, which is the accurate amount. The value of 9,400% was arrived at by "rounding up." The other additions to the sentence point out that researchers obtained different percentages of profit depending on which type of accounting they did, which should be included to maintain balance in the article. (Please see footnote 32 on page 27 of the source.)


 * Please add the word, "voluntarily" to the sentence, "After a congressional hearing criticizing TransDigm's pricing practices, the company agreed to refund the Pentagon $16 million." So that the sentence reads as follows:
 * After a congressional hearing criticizing TransDigm's pricing practices, the company voluntarily agreed to refund the Pentagon $16 million.

The new source confirms that the company voluntarily made the refund.
 * Lastly, please add the following sentence to the end of the "Recent history" section with the important, updated information about the company:
 * As of 2022, the company had 60 manufacturing facilities in the United States and 14,400 employees. Its headquarters is in Cleveland, Ohio.

Thank you very much! Avadiee44 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Coverage on 60 Minutes
The TransDigm Group was covered in a segment on the May 21, 2023 episode of 60 Minutes, which focused on the unreasonably high markups TransDigm passed on to the U.S. Department of Defense. Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/weapons-contractors-price-gouging-pentagon-60-minutes-transcript-2023-05-21/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)