Aviation has been a prominent topic of conversation across the country for the last few years. Topics like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill passed in May 2024, issues in air traffic control staffing shortages, the rise of advanced air mobility and new aviation technologies, and several high-profile aircraft accidents, just to name a few, have propelled the aviation industry into the forefront of transportation policy conversations.  

This week was no different, with two separate hearings on FAA oversight of the aircraft manufacturing giant, Boeing. On September 24, the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation met for a hearing on implementing Boeing’s Comprehensive Action Plan. The following day, the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing on FAA’s oversight of Boeing’s safety culture. In both hearings, FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker was the sole witness, providing testimony and answering member questions on a variety of issues related to FAA oversight of Boeing, but also FAA oversight activities more broadly.  

Witness: Michael Whitaker, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, United States Department of Transportation 

• House Testimony 

• Senate Testimony 

Context 

The hearings come at an important time, with Boeing under the national spotlight following an incident in January 2024. On January 5th, 2024, Alaska Airlines flight 1282 was forced to return to its point of origin after an exit door plug blew out, causing the plug to fall out, and the cabin to depressurize, mid-flight. The aircraft was a Boeing 737-9 Max. The FAA immediately grounded the 737-9 Max with the specific door design. The incident comes several years following two tragic disasters in 2018 and 2019, involving the Boeing 737 Max aircraft, which took the lives of over 300 people. Boeing has come under intense scrutiny from both the government and the public, with demands to address safety issues relating to Boeing’s quality control and production process. There have been calls for a change in the “safety culture” at Boeing.  

Key Takeaways 

The conversation in the House was broad, with members raising questions regarding employee hiring, training, and retention, aging infrastructure, deployment of the Safety Management System (SMS), employee protections, inspections, the balance of safety versus profit at Boeing, and ensuring public confidence in air travel.  

Representatives also posed questions on air traffic control staffing shortages, airport slot exemptions at Washington National Airport, and noise pollution. While not directly linked to FAA oversight of Boeing, members took the opportunity to ask Administrator Whitaker about general aviation issues which may have been top of mind for them.  

The Senate hearing took a more detailed and critical tone at times. Members of the Subcommittee focused primarily on inspections of Boeing facilities, employee and whistleblower protections, production caps, and the FAA’s relationship with Boeing. With fewer members to ask questions when compared to the House hearing, the Senators had a chance to go in depth with their concerns over Boeing’s safety track record and the oversight responsibilities placed upon the FAA.  

Throughout both hearings, there was an overwhelming sense of understanding that there has been progress in the FAA’s efforts to address Boeing’s behavior. However, more work needs to be done, and the goal of ensuring safety is the utmost priority for all stakeholders is one that will take years.  Earlier in 2024, the FAA directed Boeing to develop a comprehensive action plan to address systemic quality control and production issues. As part of the plan, Boeing committed to several goals, including enhancing employee training, increasing quality oversight at each step in the manufacturing process, boosting supplier oversight, and ensuring employees’ ability to speak freely without fear of reprisal.  

Additionally, the FAA asked Boeing to identify key performance indicators (KPIs), which correspond to goals set in the comprehensive action plan and provide real-time visibility into the production system. These indicators will monitor Boeing’s work and can be used to measure how successful Boeing is in achieving the goals it set in the comprehensive plan.  

During the House hearing, Whitaker made an important distinction that the FAA’s work is both short term and long term. The short-term work includes strategies like employee training and manufacturing part tracking. The long-term vision is to change the safety culture at Boeing and re-build trust in the company. Senators and Representatives alike noted a sense of urgency in the FAA’s oversight work to keep Boeing in line and ensure that safety issues are addressed immediately. However, Whitaker made it clear that changing safety culture takes time. Employees must see the company making good on its promises to prioritize safety for them to be convinced of a change in safety culture.  

House subcommittee ranking member Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Senate subcommittee chair Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) both urged the FAA to take a more proactive approach in its oversight. The push for more proactive oversight is an indication that some of the FAA’s current oversight efforts do not go far enough to push Boeing more aggressively towards addressing safety. For example, Sen. Blumenthal expressed concern with the FAA’s production cap on Boeing’s manufacturing. According to the FAA, until Boeing meets the performance indicators set by the FAA, it is capped at producing a certain number of planes every month. Sen. Blumenthal noted that the cap set by the FAA is not low enough to push Boeing to meet the FAA performance indicators. Rather than setting a production cap, the senator suggested capping the CEO’s compensation or lowering the production cap. For the senator, a proactive approach to oversight is setting more difficult conditions which may push companies like Boeing to fall in line with regulations set by the FAA.  

Common Themes 

Inspections 

As part of the FAA’s oversight activities, the administration deploys inspectors to various manufacturing facilities. These inspectors walk the factory floor, engage with employees, and get a sense of the happenings in the workplace. As the administrator noted, it is a “boots on the ground” kind of approach. Responding to various questions from House Subcommittee members, Whitaker noted that the goal is to have 55 inspectors spread throughout several Boeing manufacturing facilities by the end of the year. The administrator noted that inspectors’ work is important in providing real-time feedback on the production process and measuring how the company is working to meet the set key performance indicators.  

Whitaker expanded on the philosophy behind the added inspectors during the Senate hearing, responding to Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA). According to the Administrator, the move to add more inspectors was a major change following the January 5th Alaska Airlines incident, noting a similar sentiment from the day before, suggesting that inspectors on the ground provide real time visibility of Boeing’s work. Additionally, Whitaker noted another significant change in the airworthiness certification of aircraft at the end of the production process. Once the aircraft is produced, there is a final inspection and documentation that grants authorization to operate the aircraft. Whitaker explained during both hearings that the FAA has taken on the role of granting airworthiness certificates, which grants the FAA additional oversight over the process and gives the FAA the final word on aircraft operation. During the Senate hearing, Sen. Blumenthal expressed concern that issuing certification comes when the aircraft is completed and questioned whether that certification captures any issues during the production process.  

Employee Protections 

An issue of concern among Representatives and Senators during both hearings was employee protection. There was a sense that employees should be able to report issues in production and quality control without fear of retaliation from the company. At various moments throughout both hearings, members urged the FAA to ensure that whistleblower cases include the necessary employee protections should they decide to report an issue, either to their union or the FAA directly.  

The conversation on employee protections and inspections led to a more general discussion about the FAA’s relationship with Boeing. Particularly on the Senate side, there was a push to ensure that the FAA’s oversight activities are not taken lightly by Boeing. While the company has a big presence in aviation, the economy, and national security, the company must remain subject to increased oversight, given the recent high-profile incidents with Boeing manufactured aircraft. On the House side, members noted that rather than remaining an aircraft and engineering company focused on high-quality production, Boeing slowly moved towards being a company prioritizing profits over safety.  

With the development of the comprehensive action plan, Boeing is making efforts to address safety concerns with its quality control and production. Progress has been made, thanks largely to the efforts from the FAA, Congress, and the National Transportation Safety Board. However, the sentiments from the House and Senate indicate that there is a lot of work left to rebuild public trust in Boeing. There is continued concern about Boeing’s ability to commit to safety in its production and in its workplace. Ultimately, as noted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), “we want Boeing to succeed.” Yet, success is not defined by just building planes, rather, as noted by Rep. Larsen, “building the safest planes.”