Aerospace M&A Is Changing Faster Than Most People Realize
I've been working in aerospace in one form or another since 1978, when I started as a production engineer supplying Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney. That's nearly five decades of watching this industry reshape itself. And right now, in mid-2026, I'm seeing a shift in how aerospace transactions get evaluated, structured, and ultimately closed that feels different from anything I've observed before. It's not a single force driving it. It's three or four pressures landing at the same time, and the companies that don't adjust to that reality are going to find deals falling apart in ways they don't fully understand.
The most immediate pressure is geopolitical. I spend more time today evaluating the political risk wrapped around an opportunity than I did even five years ago. Supply chain dependencies that looked perfectly rational in 2018 now carry exposure that a buyer has to price in. Tariff structures are shifting fast enough that a deal's financial logic can change between letter of intent and closing. When I'm working through an opportunity at America Aero Group, the first conversation is no longer just about the asset. It's about where that asset sits in a supply chain and what happens to its value if a trade relationship deteriorates. That analysis used to be a secondary concern. It's now front of mind.
Cost of funds has compounded the problem. I've worked through high-rate environments before, but the current combination of elevated borrowing costs and inflation pressure on MRO and parts pricing creates a margin squeeze that shows up deep in due diligence. What looks like a healthy business on a surface read can reveal real stress once you start modeling the capital structure against today's interest rate assumptions. I watched this play out during my work on the VAS/Satair transaction in 2022, where the discipline of working through every financial assumption in detail made the difference between a clean close and a deal that could have unraveled late. That kind of rigor matters even more now.
Here's where I think the shift is most significant, though. Buyers and sellers are both arriving at the table less trusting than they used to be. That sounds like a problem, and in poorly run processes it is. But I think it's actually a correction. For years, aerospace M&A moved on relationships and handshakes more than it probably should have. What I'm seeing now is that full transparency has become a non-negotiable at the front end of a transaction. Both sides want to see the data before they invest real time. That disciplines the process. It rewards preparation and punishes parties who walk in with inflated expectations and incomplete disclosure.
My own approach has always been to do the research first. Know more than the other side when you sit down. That principle hasn't changed. But the volume of information that's now available, and expected, means that preparation takes longer and has to go deeper. I rely on relationships built over decades in this industry to get honest reads on assets before formal diligence begins. That network of people who will tell you the truth about a company is something you can't build quickly. It compounds over time, and right now it's worth more than it's ever been.
I also think the way transactions are being structured is evolving. Straightforward asset sales are giving way to more layered arrangements that try to allocate risk in ways that reflect genuine uncertainty about the next 18 to 36 months. That requires counsel and advisors who can hold complexity without letting it become an excuse for bad decisions. One principle I come back to constantly is this: if you can't explain the deal simply, the risk is too high. Complexity in a transaction structure is sometimes necessary. But complexity that nobody on the team can articulate clearly is a warning sign, not a feature.
Where I see this heading is toward a market that rewards the disciplined and patient over the aggressive and overleveraged. The companies and advisors who will close the best aerospace deals over the next several years are the ones doing the work now, building the relationships, understanding the geopolitical exposure in their target sectors, and walking away from opportunities that don't hold up under honest scrutiny. I've walked away from deals that others pushed hard to close, and in nearly every case, patience proved out. The right transaction at the right terms is worth more than a fast close on the wrong one, and I think the current environment is about to teach that lesson to a new generation of dealmakers.