The FAA has recently permitted Boeing to independently issue airworthiness certificates for new examples of its 737 MAX and 787 models, but just a week after Boeing was granted this privilege (which it historically held for decades but was suspended in recent years), the FAA has proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) regarding improperly installed seats on hundreds of 737 MAXs. It’s not actually unusual for the FAA and other regulators to issue ADs, but it does signal that the FAA is only stepping up its oversight of Boeing.
ADs are issued continuously throughout an aircraft’s lifetime as unsafe conditions are discovered by regulators or the manufacturer, and operators are required to service their aircraft to remain in compliance within the stated deadline, or else the plane is not legal to fly. In a way, the AD affecting the 737 MAX has received more attention than you’d otherwise expect for an AD, given that these are fairly common in commercial aviation, but it does show that the FAA will not step away from overseeing Boeing’s operations just because the manufacturer can certify its planes now.
The New Airworthiness Directive Affecting The 737 MAX
On July 27, 2026, the FAA proposed an AD notifying that seats on 453 US-registered 737 MAXs may have been improperly installed to the seat rails. This was issued after a report was sent indicating that some seat assemblies were not correctly installed on some 737s, which could result in the assemblies disengaging from the seat tracks if experiencing an increased load. This may include during an emergency landing or during turbulence. Boeing first issued guidance to airlines in December 2025 about the issue, with the AD making repairs mandatory.
It’s believed that up to 69 track-mounted passenger seat assemblies on a 737 MAX will need to be inspected, and the inspection would take roughly one hour, while repairing a single assembly would take another hour. Multiple employees could inspect and repair different seat assemblies simultaneously, reducing the total amount of time an aircraft would need to spend on the ground. It’s unclear how many aircraft outside the US are impacted, and how many airlines will need to perform repairs.
This issue represents a major safety risk to passengers, since it could cause seats to essentially come apart from the floor during periods of heightened loads, which are fairly common during an aircraft’s life. The FAA is therefore doing its job by carefully scrutinizing the concern that was brought up and then issuing mandatory repairs to airlines that fall under its jurisdiction. However, despite the issue, this shouldn’t be a cause for concern regarding Boeing, because ADs are a normal part of commercial aviation and the company just recently started certifying its planes again.
In addition to the US-registered 737s, the AD will also affect an unspecified number of foreign 737 MAXs, as other regulators will presumably adopt the FAA’s AD into their own writing. The AD is expected to take effect in September, and it’s believed that anywhere from 31,000 to 80,000 seats will need to be inspected. Reportedly, the issue is centered around aft shear plungers failing to engage in seat tracks during assembly, which is leading to the unsafe condition.
In the US, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines are the two largest 737 MAX operators, flying 325 and 290 units respectively. In addition, American Airlines has 103 examples in its fleet, and Alaska Airlines has 100 737 MAX aircraft, while Allegiant Air flies 21 737 MAX aircraft. All examples are either the 737 MAX 8, its 737 MAX 200 subvariant, or the 737 MAX 9, and 839 units are flying with US airlines today, meaning that more than half of all 737 MAXs in the US will need to be inspected.
Worldwide, over 2,200 737 MAXs have been delivered, and given how many US-registered MAXs will need to be inspected, there is a significant possibility for operational disruption. It’s believed that US operators may need to spend a combined total of up to $2.66 million repairing the seats, which, while low compared to the purchase price of the aircraft, is still a significant amount of money to have to spend on repairing already-delivered planes. Still, ADs are part of the industry, so it’s hardly out of the ordinary.
The rule has become a major safeguard for the 737 MAX.
On July 20, the FAA granted Boeing permission to issue airworthiness certificates for new examples of the 737 MAX and 787. This is a privilege that Boeing has held for decades, but the FAA revoked this right from Boeing in recent years due to numerous issues with these two programs, while Boeing has continued to self-certify new examples of the 767-300F and 777F. Of course, these are low-volume freighters, with the 737 MAX and 787 being Boeing’s two major income sources, so the reinstatement of this right is a major vote of confidence in the manufacturer.
The FAA revoked Boeing’s right to self-certify new examples of the 737 MAX after the two fatal crashes of the type in 2018 and 2019 that led to a roughly 20-month worldwide grounding. The two crashes were largely attributed to the aircraft’s design, but soon, quality control became another worrisome topic. These concerns were validated when a door plug blew off an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 in 2024. Since then, the FAA has increased oversight, initially capped 737 production, and is only now relaxing restrictions after serious efforts have been made to improve quality control.
Workers and whistleblowers have long voiced concerns about the 787’s production quality throughout the 2010s, but in 2022, the FAA revoked Boeing’s right to self-certify new 787s due to multiple quality control issues. Deliveries were paused for over a year from 2021 to 2022, and then they were briefly paused again in 2023. Boeing has since had to make adjustments to its production processes and is now claiming that it’s largely resolved prior quality issues, with the FAA now permitting it to issue airworthiness certificates for the 787 independently.
Regulators issue ADs for a diverse range of aircraft types regularly: there is currently an active AD for the Airbus A320 family regarding a cargo panel sub-structure, as an example. The 737 MAX, however, is a unique case because this type has been in the news several times over the past several years for the wrong reasons, becoming well-known to the general public for the design challenges and quality control issues that led to prior accidents. In addition, the FAA has been public about keeping a close eye on the program.
The FAA revoked Boeing’s self-certification rights for the 737 program after the initial grounding, and instituted a production cap after the Alaska Airlines door-plug blowout. Since then, the responsibility has fallen on Boeing to prove that it can reliably produce the 737 MAX at higher volumes without sacrificing quality, which it seems to have done. The FAA initially restricted the line to 38 units per month, delaying planned increases, but has gradually permitted Boeing to bump the rate to 42 per month, and most recently, 47 per month.
While at first, it appears troubling that the FAA has had to issue an AD just a week after granting Boeing the right to self-certify new 737s, it does not seem that this has any impact on the organization’s decision. As a whole, it’s a fairly standard procedure to address a potentially unsafe condition, and it’s only notable because it involves the 737 MAX while also coming just a week after the FAA returned the responsibility of certifying new planes back to Boeing.
30 Boeing 777X jets are built, stored, and not going anywhere for years.
Ever since the 737 MAX groundings, the FAA and other regulators have increased oversight of Boeing and other aerospace companies. The 737 MAX 7 has only just now been certified in early August, whereas it was initially planned to be certified in 2019. The 737 MAX 10’s certification isn’t expected until the fall, whereas the Boeing 777-9 will come later. The 737 MAX 10 and 777-9 were originally meant to enter service in 2020. COVID delays played a part, but the FAA is also being more thorough in scrutinizing these planes before giving its seal of approval.
Regulators have also been more thorough with other companies; the EASA mandated that Airbus update the design of the Rear Centre Tank (RCT) on the Airbus A321XLR to reduce the risk of a fire spreading. Seat suppliers have been particularly impacted by increased oversight, as regulators have not always approved new designs and this has delayed new aircraft deliveries in some cases.
The 737 MAX crisis showed the world that Boeing and the FAA had become too comfortable in allowing new designs to enter service without thoroughly scrutinizing changes to ensure safety, and 346 people paid for this lack of oversight with their lives. As such, regulators are being more thorough throughout the industry, and this is a trend that’s likely to persist.
Found an error? Send it info@simpleflying.com so it can be corrected.
Orijinal Haberi Görüntüle
