In the fiercely competitive world of aviation, where every penny counts, airlines are always on the lookout for ways to trim expenses without compromising safety or quality. One of solutions, which is increasingly gaining popularity is the use of Product Maintenance Approval (PMA) parts – non-OEM components approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use on aircraft.

Where Affordability is a Key

PMA parts come with a significant price advantage, often priced 20-50% lower than their OEM counterparts. For airlines, this translates to substantial long-term savings, providing a welcome boost to their bottom line.

Back in the 80’s manufacturing and supplying parts for aircraft was basically a game of chance for a lot of businesses in the US. If the aircraft component they produced was approved by the FAA and become a legit PMA part, it could significantly improve your chances of meeting of booming demand for an aircraft components which were not manufactured by major aircraft-releasing companies – but were pointedly cheaper than these which were conceived along with these bound for assembly lines of major airliners.

During the 1990s, the FAA initiated an “Enhanced Enforcement” program aimed at educating the aviation industry about the significance of obtaining approval. As a result, a substantial volume of parts received formal approval through FAA mechanisms. Within the framework of this program, companies that had previously produced aircraft parts without PMAs were given the opportunity to seek PMAs. This process enabled them to align their manufacturing operations fully with regulatory requirements. Consequently, there was a surge in the availability of PMA parts in the market.

No More Waiting Around

In 2009, the FAA made important changes to U.S. manufacturing regulations. These changes aimed to remove legal distinctions in the types of production approval issued by the FAA. The goal was to show stronger support for the quality systems used by PMA manufacturers. In simpler terms, the rules were updated to make it clearer that all production approval holders must adhere to the same production quality standards.

Before this change, there were separate regulations for PMA Fabrication Inspection Systems (FIS). The new rule eliminated this separation and referenced a regulation that defines the elements of a quality system for all production approval holders.

The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) played a significant role in achieving this goal of harmonizing standards. The updated rule became effective on April 16, 2011.

As a result, the FAA’s regulations now apply a common set of quality assurance standards to all production approvals, whether for complete aircraft or individual parts. This includes specific regulations outlining the quality system requirements for production certificates, PMA holders, and TSOA holders. Compliance with these standards is evaluated by the FAA during certificate management activities after the rule’s compliance date.

The PMA industry, which originated in the United States, has seen global expansion with several countries actively promoting the production of approved aircraft parts within their own borders. Among these jurisdictions, Australia, China, and the European Union (producing them as “EPA Parts”) have emerged as key players in the PMA market. This reflects a shift in the aviation industry, where countries are increasingly striving for self-sufficiency in producing essential components for aircraft.

Notably, the European Union’s production of EPA Parts underscores the international nature of the PMA industry, with diverse regions adopting their own approaches and standards. Moreover, other jurisdictions are gearing up to enter the PMA market in the near future. Japan, for instance, has established PMA regulations and secured a bilateral agreement with the United States, allowing the export of these parts to the U.S. as airworthy aircraft components. This development signals a growing trend of collaboration and regulatory alignment between countries, fostering the expansion of the PMA industry beyond its American origins.

Addressing Supply Chain Issues

As countries worldwide work on establishing and refining their PMA regulations, the aviation industry is witnessing a more decentralized and globally interconnected approach to the production of approved aircraft parts. The collaboration between nations, as seen in agreements like the one between Japan and the United States, highlights the importance of international cooperation in ensuring the safety and reliability of PMA components in the broader context of air travel.

Unlike OEM parts, PMA parts boast quicker availability. Free from the constraints of the OEM supply chain, these components can be acquired faster, minimizing aircraft downtime, and streamlining maintenance operations. The wide variety of manufacturers and suppliers also play a significant role here.

Online marketplaces like Locatoty.com can help address supply chain issues by making PMA parts more accessible to airlines and maintenance providers. Such marketplaces aggregate parts from variety of suppliers, making it easier for buyers to find parts they need quickly and easily. Additionally, Locatory.com and other trusted services only list parts that have been certified and have the FAA approval they need, ensuring that buyers are getting quality parts that meet all safety standards.

Performance That Surprises

Using an online marketplace like Locatoty.com can also help airlines and maintenance providers save money on PMA parts. Here, sellers often offer discounts on bulk purchases, and they can help buyers avoid the high costs of more conventional distribution channels. Additionally, many marketplaces, such as Locatory.com, offer significant discounts on shipping, which can further reduce costs.

Believe it or not, some PMA parts often outperform their OEM counterparts. Manufacturers of PMA parts leverage newer technologies and materials, allowing airlines to benefit from the latest innovations without emptying their pockets.

Being able to use newer technologies and materials than OEMs, PMA manufacturers often surpass the original equivalents not only in terms of price but also when it comes to increased efficiency, as such parts often demonstrate increased durability, greater strength, or lighter weight. In addition to that, PMA producers may have specialized expertise in specific areas, such as manufacturing complex parts or using advanced materials.

Safety First with PMA Parts

They also can have significant advantage in the research and development fields, for example, if they have previous experience related to competing in automotive, military, space, or other industries where there could be also a history of governmental funding related to R&D, resulting in significant scientific advancements, which, in turn have a real-world competitive aerospace applications. An example of such real-world applications could be cases, in which a PMA engine or hydraulic component is able to operate with lower maintenance requirements, reducing downtime and costs.

Safety is the name of the game in aviation, and the FAA doesn’t take it lightly. The FAA’s rigorous approval process for PMA parts ensures that they meet all the safety standards. In fact, the FAA explicitly states that PMA parts are as safe as OEM parts, putting any lingering safety concerns to rest.

While the cost savings are tempting, it’s crucial to be smart about selecting PMA parts. An aircraft operator or MRO facility should consider collaborating only with reputable and certified manufacturers to ensure they are getting quality components. Also, it makes sense to double-check for that FAA approval stamp and make sure the parts meet all the necessary safety standards. And shopping around never hurt – get quotes from a few suppliers to make sure you’re getting the best beat for your buck.

PMA Parts in Action

Even when aircraft manufacturers and maintenance providers are pretty sure that they are choosing wisely, there is more things to consider. PMA parts, which have been just recently listed on the market do not necessarily mean the best price-to quality ratio as some of such components may be in the market for a very long time – this is especially true when talking about parts for older aircraft, for example, B737-300 series. PMA parts cover a broad range of essential components for aircraft, such as valves, bearings, and seals for engines, landing gear components, door seals, and cockpit windows for the airframe; circuit breakers, fuses, and batteries for the electrical system; and pumps, valves, and hoses for the hydraulic components.

The extended lifespan of older aircraft and engine variants is another significant development. Some fleets, especially these of the most popular narrowbodies, that were anticipated being retired, are getting repairs again and will keep flying concurrently to meet the demand which persists due the gap in anticipated deliveries or significant unexpected events, such as groundings of B737 Max. However, producers of PMA parts are eager to meet the increasing need for these components in the future when the current ones on more modern aircraft, such as the B737 Max or A320 Neo series, will need to be replaced.

In a nutshell, integrating PMA parts into the mix is a smart move for airlines looking to cut costs without sacrificing safety or performance. As the aviation industry evolves, finding cost-effective alternatives like PMA parts becomes a game-changer for staying profitable and competitive. Stick to safety standards, choose trustworthy manufacturers, and explore the diverse range of PMA parts available – because in aviation, every dollar saved is a victory in the sky.

On January 6, 2024, an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 aircraft experienced a mid-flight emergency landing after a section of the fuselage, approximately the size of a refrigerator, blew off shortly after takeoff from Portland, Oregon. The incident, which occurred at an altitude of around 16,000 feet is again raising concerns about the safety of the 737 Max family of aircraft.

Background and Investigation

The incident on board Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, carrying 177 passengers and crew, is the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the 737 Max since its return to service in 2020 following a two-year grounding due to two fatal crashes. The cause of the fuselage rupture remains under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). However, early indications suggest that the issue may be related to the manufacturing process or the installation of the fuselage plug.

Preliminary reports indicate that in weeks leading up to the incident, Alaska Airlines’ pilots had reported pressurization warnings on three separate flights. While these warnings were initially categorized as “benign,” the connection to the door plug failure remains unclear.

“The Alaska Airlines incident has reignited concerns about the quality control measures implemented by Boeing and its suppliers.” – says Toma Matutytė, the CEO of online aviation marketplace Locatory.com. ‘It also raises questions about the durability of the 737 Max’s fuselage, particularly in areas where there are gaps or openings. These concerns are particularly worrying given the 737 Max’s history of safety issues, which have eroded public confidence in the aircraft.”

In the case of the Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 incident, the fuselage plug that blew off was manufactured by Spirit AeroSystems. The plug is a relatively small part, but it is critical to the integrity of the fuselage.

Potential Problems and Concerns

Wichita, Kansas-located Spirit AeroSystems manufactures a wide variety of fuselage parts for Boeing aircraft, including doors, windows, bulkheads, and floor panels. Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems have a long-standing relationship, and the two companies work closely together to ensure the quality and reliability of the fuselage parts that Spirit AeroSystems supplies.

Yet, last April, Boeing issued a warning about potential delays in the production and delivery of a substantial quantity of its 737 Max aircraft. The concerns stemmed from uncertainties surrounding Spirit AeroSystems’ efforts in constructing the fuselages. It was related to the setback in Boeing’s plan to deliver 400 to 450 Max jets last year, which, in turn, was attributed to a flaw involving elongated fastener holes discovered in some components.

Historically, Spirit was a part of Boeing, responsible for manufacturing and assembling a significant fraction of its aircraft fuselages. In 2005, Spirit AeroSystems was spun off from Boeing as a standalone company and since then American planemaker is manufacturer’s biggest customer, accounting for approximately two-thirds of Spirit’s sales. Today, Spirit also produces fuselage sections and front wing spars for the Airbus A350, as well as parts for fuselage of Bombardier planes. As of latest financial disclosure, roughly 20% of Spirit’s sales come from Airbus.

The recent production delays and quality issues with the 737 MAX fuselage parts could potentially affect even the relationship between Spirit AeroSystems and Airbus as well as other major aircraft manufacturers. This is because the issue could lead to further production delays, quality, and concerns, which could make planemakers reconsider its reliance on Spirit for fuselage components.

Outlook and What to Expect Next

If Airbus or Boeing itself decides to diversify its supply chain and seek other suppliers for fuselage components, it could reduce Spirit’s overall revenue and profit margins. On the other hand, if planemakers would be still satisfied with Spirit’s ability to address the current issues and maintain a high level of quality, then the relationship between the two companies could remain strong.

“Of course, in the nearest future, the manufacturers will have to continue to rely on Spirit for a significant portion of its fuselage needs, and Spirit could secure a steady source of revenue from Boeing, Airbus, and smaller producers. The outcome of this situation will depend on how effectively Spirit resolves the existing issues and demonstrates its responsibility when it comes to the quality of its assembly.” – Matutytė explains.

The NTSB’s investigation is ongoing, and it could even take up to several months to determine the root cause of the fuselage rupture. In the meantime, airlines are grounding their Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft until further inspections are completed. The grounding is likely to cause significant disruption to airlines that operate the 737 Max 9, particularly Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, which are the two largest operators of the aircraft in the United States.

Being the main and largest operator of the 737 Max 9 with the configuration in question, where such door is plugged, or permanently shut, as opposed to actively used in more densely arranged seating, United currently has 79 such planes, which is significantly more than 65 operated by Alaska Airlines, or the combined total of 52 of Aeroméxico, Copa Airlines, and Icelandair.

Initially, the FAA indicated that the necessary inspections would require four to eight hours, fostering industry expectations of a swift return to service for the planes. However, specific criteria for the checks are still pending agreement between the FAA and Boeing, resulting in a possible delay in providing airlines with detailed instructions.

Implications for Boeing and the Aviation Industry

The Alaska Airlines incident is a major setback for Boeing, which is still struggling to regain its credibility following the 737 Max crisis. The incident could further damage the company’s reputation and erode customer confidence in its products. It could also lead to regulatory scrutiny, also getting to the light and bringing closer the possible implementation of long-demanded extension for cockpit voice recorder’s capacity.

The US-operated 737 MAX has a two-hour CVR capacity, while the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) regulations already demand for the capacity of 25 hours, so airlines, operating under the authority of FAA, could face serious issues when it comes to investigations of the incidents such as this.

Namely, the circuit breaker for the CVR was not deactivated following the incident to safeguard the recording. Consequently, when accessed later, the recording had already been entirely overwritten. Yet, this time again, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy advocated for increasing the mandated capacity from the current 2 hours to 25 hours on both new and existing aircraft.

For the aviation industry as a whole, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous safety standards and thorough inspections. It also highlights the need for open communication, quality control, and more transparency between manufacturers, airlines, and regulators.

The Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 incident is a serious reminder of the potential risks associated with aviation safety. The investigation into the cause of the fuselage rupture is crucial to understanding the underlying issues and preventing similar incidents from happening in the future. As the investigation progresses, it is important to remain alert and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safety of all aircraft operations.