It wasn’t until the 1950s that the need for Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) parts appeared when repurposed and surplus wartime aircraft needed repairs, but the aircraft were no longer being manufactured, so there was an automatic shortage of OEM parts. With necessity being the mother of invention, it was decided that parts could be manufactured by anyone and used by carriers and MRO operatives, but that these parts would still be subject to the strictest regulations and scrutiny under the watchful eye of the US Federal Aviation Administration. This solution to the previous single option of using OEM parts gained traction and in the 1980s and 1990s, PMA parts became more and more popular.
We decided to take a closer look at the PMA landscape today with the help of three respected industry professionals.
What role do PMA parts play in today’s aircraft maintenance ecosystem?
Jeremy Hahn, VP of Engineering at Jet Parts Engineering is quick to point out that PMA parts take pressure off the OEM supply chain as well as providing cost relief, while adding that: “They return leverage to operators and hold OEM manufacturers accountable in how they price and support their products. And the beneficiaries extend well beyond the maintenance shops: operators, airlines, and ultimately passengers all gain with PMA when parts availability improves, problems are addressed, and costs are held in check.” Virgil D. Pizer, Chief Executive Officer at PEM-AIR Turbine Engine Services is of a similar mind to Hahn in terms of supply chains and costs. He feels that where PMA parts are concerned, “They enable operators and lessors to manage lifecycle economics more flexibly, reducing dependency on OEM lead times while maintaining full regulatory compliance. As fleets age and secondary engine programmes remain active longer than forecast, PMA adoption helps sustain airworthiness and operational continuity without compromising reliability or traceability.” He continues: “For us at Pem Air, PMA integration is a practical extension of our customer first approach. It allows us to tailor workscopes to each operator’s economic and technical reality, balancing OEM, PMA, and DER solutions to achieve the best long-term outcome. By combining PMA parts with DER repairs where appropriate, we preserve performance standards while keeping maintenance predictable and cost aligned, ensuring engines stay productive assets, not financial liabilities.” Over at Werner Aero LLC, company Director of Repairs, Jelani Cain, is also a proponent of the belief that “PMA’s offer a solution to material supply chain issues in a market where options are often slim.” She advises that “PMA parts play a critical role in keeping aircraft maintenance ecosystems going. Airlines are operating aircraft in their fleet for longer lifespans and OEMs are focused on supporting their on-wing and stock-inventory requirements; sometimes that focus on the airlines comes to the detriment of the aftermarket. Not enough OEM support or planning can lead to issues like long lead times, and shortages. Critical OEM part shortages in the aftermarket cause operators expensive delays, AOGs and even cancellations.”
How has the perception of PMA parts evolved over the past decade?
While PMAs may have been around for over 70 years, their adoption into the MRO ecosystem was never really overwhelming and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that for some time they were looked upon more as an inferior alternative or last-resort solution. All three respondents are in accord when it comes to seeing the opinion surrounding PMA parts changing quite dramatically today, primarily based on quality issues.
Virgil D. Pizer believes that over the past decade, PMA parts have moved from being viewed as cost-driven alternatives to being recognised as strategic enablers of reliability and continuity across the engine maintenance landscape. He explains further: “Broader industry acceptance has followed proven performance and regulatory confidence; major airlines, independent MROs, and even OEM-aligned shops now routinely incorporate PMA solutions into lifecycle planning. The remaining hesitation largely sits with lessors, who tend to prioritise asset conformity and remarketing flexibility, though even that stance is softening as PMA traceability and documentation standards continue to mature. For us at Pem Air, this shift has opened the door to deeper collaboration and technical trust. Operators increasingly approach PMA integration as part of a planned lifecycle strategy rather than a last-resort measure. By pairing PMA with DER repairs, we help customers achieve predictable performance and cost stability, turning what was once a tactical choice into a cornerstone of sustainable turbofan maintenance.”
Jelani Cain certainly feels that over the last decade the industry as a whole has become more accepting of PMA parts, telling us that “Some of that has to do with the supply chain disruption caused by COVID. COVID’s unforeseen disruption led to material shortages across the globe and industries worldwide, aviation being no different. While commercial air traffic drastically decreased during this time, the surge in air cargo demand meant most cargo freighters saw an increase in usage. PMAs played a pivotal role in keeping those freighters operating by providing an alternative to the OEM’s bottlenecks, delays and obsolescence. Many in the industry have a greater appreciation for PMAs after seeing how they helped the industry during COVID.” Jeremy Hahn sees the perception of PMA parts changing over the decade from a solution once met with scepticism and reluctance to one that airlines now seek out with eagerness and even urgency. However, he cautions that “…that transformation wasn’t handed to the industry; it was earned through decades of outstanding engineering, reliable supply chain support, and first-rate customer service. Today, the dynamic has reversed entirely. Rather than PMA suppliers selling into a hesitant market, forward-looking airlines are aggressively driving PMA adoption, pushing the boundaries of PMA acceptance and integrating these parts into increasingly critical areas of their fleets.”
What are the main compliance challenges operators face when introducing PMA parts into their fleets?
Because PMA parts are an alternative, a replacement for OEM parts, their introduction within the parts supply chain has to come with considerable oversight from the FAA to ensure the highest safety standards are upheld. However, this has to present its own set of challenges for fleet operators, as you will now discover.
For Virgil D. Pizer, the toughest compliance hurdle is traceability and documentation. He further informs us that: “Regulators demand clear proof that PMA parts meet or exceed OEM standards and that installation records align with approved data. Operators must ensure every component carries proper FAA or EASA approval, conformity tags, and integration into maintenance tracking systems – especially when engines cross borders or leasing contracts with differing conformity clauses.” He then adds: “… we treat compliance as a partnership, not paperwork. Our teams maintain full traceability from certification through installation, validating both engineering data and documentation when PMA parts are paired with DER repairs. This approach keeps airworthiness intact while giving operators confidence that every decision meets regulatory expectations and supports long term asset value.”
Jelani Cain is more concerned about FAA approval. He advises that “Operators are responsible for verifying that all PMAs are FAA approved before being installed by checking the 8130-3 certificate with the unit. Operators can check PMA parts are listed in the FAA Dynamic Regulatory System on the FAA’s website. Even after an operator confirms 8130-3 is correct, they still need to verify the part is applicable to their aircraft before installing.” Jeremy Hahn, on the other hand, is more focused on aircraft eligibility, commenting that he sees no barriers to introducing PMA parts into customer fleets as PMA parts satisfy the same airworthiness regulations as their OEM counterparts. He notes, however, that: “The primary exception arises when a PMA supplement lacks the necessary aircraft eligibility. Since PMA approvals encompass eligibility on top of design and production approval, incomplete eligibility listings can drive short term issues and isn’t uncommon. In those cases, the PMA holder must pursue an eligibility expansion through the FAA, or the operator can directly write the part into their service manuals. Beyond this, operators may also encounter internal hurdles such as obtaining engineering acceptance, procurement authorisation, or fleet configuration approval before a PMA part can enter service.”
What kind of cost savings can operators realistically expect from using PMA parts?
It would not be unrealistic to expect that PMA parts would be less expensive than OEM parts, but perhaps that simplistic opinion might mask the true value of PMA parts in connection with overall MRO costs, especially when it comes to avoiding problems that the delay in OEM parts’ provision can create. All three respondents have identified indirect cost savings beyond actual price. For example, Jeremy Hahn is quick to point out that “The cost savings associated with PMA parts are frequently underestimated when the analysis stops at unit price. While a straight OEM-to-PMA price comparison may show savings of 20% or so, the broader picture tells a more compelling story. In reality, the full value proposition extends well beyond unit price. Larger discounts are regularly available, and when you factor in the cost relief that comes from consistent product availability and reduced AOG exposure with the responsiveness of attentive supplier relationships, the cumulative savings can be overwhelming. Viewed in their entirety, PMA parts frequently deliver meaningful relief to operational costs and a large impact to the overall bottom line, all with the customer support of a partner whose goals are aligned.”
Virgil D. Pizer backs up Hahn’s opinion when he tells us that “The most meaningful savings come not from lower part prices but from availability and turnaround time. PMA parts shorten maintenance cycles by reducing dependency on OEM lead times, often cutting weeks off an engine’s off-wing period. That faster access translates directly into higher aircraft utilisation, fewer lease penalties, and less disruption to flight schedules. For smaller and mid-size operators, those gains can outweigh material cost differences entirely. In our approach, we see PMA integration as a way to keep engines earning revenue instead of waiting on parts. By maintaining consistent supply and pairing PMA solutions with DER repairs when appropriate, we help customers avoid costly downtime and preserve planning stability. The result is a measurable improvement in operational efficiency, where time saved becomes the real economic advantage.”
For Jelani Cain, looking beyond the obvious cost saving where price is concerned is imperative. As he details: “While it is more difficult to calculate the exact dollar amount, operators can estimate the cost avoidance savings of not having delays, AOGs or even cancelations due to lack of availability of OEM parts. This is where one of the real values of PMA comes into view. The cost of AOGs and cancelations quickly add up to more than the savings from most PMA parts. When OEMs struggle to support the aftermarket, having one, or multiple PMA options not only saves operations money, but also headaches from operational delays due to lack of part availability. PMAs usually offered a cheaper alternative to their OEM counterpart.”
Beyond cost, what operational advantages (e.g., availability, lead times) do PMA parts offer?
To expand on what was pointed out above, we wanted to know more about any indirect benefits PMA parts offer beyond cost benefits. Unsurprisingly, all three contributors were very clear in their opinion with regard to providing a viable solution to supply chain problems connected with OEM parts. While Virgil D. Pizer refers us to the answer he provided for the previous question, which comprehensively answers this question simultaneously, Jeremy Hahn expands further. “The most urgent draw of PMA parts today is supply chain relief. Operators are dealing with disruptions severe enough to ground aircraft, and PMA has stepped into that gap with real effect. Cost savings remain a powerful secondary benefit but there is a third dimension that deserves more attention: the way PMA companies conduct business. Their genuine commitment to customer care stands in sharp contrast to the experience many operators have with suppliers who recognise they hold a captive market. That responsiveness and accountability matter. Ultimately, the operational advantages of PMA are only as broad as an operator’s willingness to look beyond unit cost savings and recognise the full scope of value that PMA parts provide,” he says. This opinion is supported by comments on the issue from Jelani Cain, when he advises that: “Besides cost, PMA parts offer operators alternative options to OEM supply chain issues. Critical part shortages have a compounding effect on operations. When operators can’t get parts for their inventory or refill it at the same rate they’re using the component, they’ll end up using all their stock. Once that occurs and an operator needs that part again to clear a deferral or fulfil an AOG, the ability to obtain the part in a timely manner is critical in keeping operation going. Operators can turn to PMAs to keep their aircraft airworthy and their operation going.”
What are the main barriers preventing wider adoption of PMA parts?
Would it surprise you that OEMs haven’t exactly welcomed the introduction of PMA parts? However, is this the only challenge faced by PMA parts, or are there less-obvious disadvantages and drawbacks? At Werner Aero LLC, Jelani Cain is very succinct in his reply. “Many OEMs have policies that protect their market share in the aftermarket by putting pressure on operators against using PMA parts in their products. One example is when OEMs void warranty of a unit if a PMA was used in it. Another example is when OEM engine shops rejecting engines that have had PMA parts installed in them,” he says. Meanwhile, Jeremy Hahn at Jet Parts Engineering looks at the situation from a different angle as he feels that: “The single greatest barrier to wider PMA adoption is operator conservatism, but that position is proving increasingly hard to defend. Operators who have yet to embrace PMA are finding themselves at a measurable disadvantage relative to peers who are capturing significant cost and operational benefits. That gap is hard to ignore, and the hesitation that once characterised the industry is steadily eroding. Looking ahead, critical parts and leased aircraft represent the final frontiers for PMA acceptance, but even those boundaries are beginning to soften as operators grow more sophisticated in how they evaluate risk and aggressively seek to maximise their value propositions.”.
Virgil D. Pizer at PEM-AIR identifies the problem of perception and details how he looks to challenge asset conformity. He explains further: “Despite proven reliability, PMA adoption still faces perception and procedural barriers. The biggest hurdle remains asset conformity; lessors and financial institutions often prefer OEM‑only configurations to simplify remarketing and residual value assessments. In parallel, some operators hesitate due to internal approval processes and legacy maintenance programmes that were built around OEM documentation. These factors slow integration even when technical and economic benefits are clear.” He then adds that the company “… focuses on the challenge of education and transparency. By demonstrating traceability, performance data, and regulatory alignment, we help customers and lessors gain confidence in PMA use. As documentation standards and cross‑fleet experience continue to mature, these barriers are steadily eroding – making PMA parts a practical, compliant, and increasingly accepted component of modern turbofan maintenance.”
How do airlines and MROs typically evaluate whether to use a PMA part or stick with OEM?
Unsurprisingly, there is no single element that has to be taken into consideration, but more a case of balancing the pros and cons of several options. Virgil D. Pizer sums up the situation well as he explains: “Most airlines and MROs weigh the decision through a mix of technical validation, economic impact, and asset strategy. They look at part cruciality, fleet age, and remaining engine life, balancing reliability data, warranty implications, and long-term maintenance planning. For many, the choice hinges on how a PMA solution fits within their approved maintenance programme and whether it supports turnaround goals without compromising conformity or resale flexibility. While that decision ultimately belongs to the customer, we see our role at Pem-Air to act as a trusted advisor, presenting clear data on performance, traceability, and lifecycle economics so the operator can make an informed choice. We keep the customer’s best interest front and centre, whether that means recommending OEM, PMA, or a blended approach that includes DER repairs to achieve the most efficient and compliant outcome.”
Jeremy Hahn is more focused on the role played by OEMs when it comes to the adoption of PMA parts. He tells us that “OEM conduct is most often what initiates PMA consideration in the first place and from there, airlines and MROs typically weigh overall OEM performance history and part criticality when evaluating a formal switch. PMA exists largely as a market response to inadequate OEM support: chronic pricing pressure, extended lead times, limited responsiveness to operator concerns, and even problematic parts have collectively created the conditions in which PMA thrives. PMA providers have deliberately positioned themselves as the solution providers to these issues, offering dramatically reduced lead times, collaborative supplier relationships, meaningful cost savings, and refined engineering. As operators experience those benefits first hand and stack them against the frustrations of entrenched vendor relationships, many are now actively pursuing PMA solutions across nearly their entire parts catalogues.” Jelani Cain certainly feels there is more than one key influencing factor, and details three of them for us. He begins by pointing out that: “Reliability is one of the first things that come to mind when thinking about using a PMA. While all real PMAs have gone through an extensive certification process to prove their airworthiness, some operators still would ask for additional reliability data to ensure the unit is up to par, or better than its OEM counterpart. Availability and cost also play a big factor. If an operator has access to an OEM part where its cost is similar to its PMA alternative, and there is no reliability improvement, there would be no need to switch.”
How do aircraft lessors view the use of PMA parts on leased assets?
Leases can vary from lessor to lessor, but it is not uncommon to find a lease that requires the lessor to only use OEM parts where MRO is concerned. This can create a situation at handover at the end of the lease where a lessor can accept a financial penalty or consider replacing all current PMA parts with OEM parts. Is it a case that the lease requires the returned aircraft to contain only OEM parts, but allows for the use of PMA parts in the interim? Would this allow for an MRO strategy where a PMA part is used owing to OEM supply chain delays in order to avoid a lengthy AOG, but that subsequently a USM OEM is acquired at a later date, either with a view to replacing the PMA part during the ongoing MRO strategy, or in preparation for end-of-lease handover? Jelani Cain is certainly wary about potential problems created in advance of an aircraft’s return to the lessor. “Some operators might be hesitant to install PMA’s on leased aircraft in order to comply with the lessor’s contract because some leases are set up where the lessor will only accept the aircraft back if it has fully OEM parts installed. If an operator installs too many PMAs and the lease is up, the operator would need to replace certain PMA components with OEM. This can become expensive depending on what and how many parts are being replaced. PMA might also affect the resale value of a component, as some operators are still wary of accepting them. This can decrease the demand for units with PMAs in them, reducing their resale value,” he suggests.
Jeremy Hahn is keen to explore a different approach and attitude that may well become ‘the norm’ in time. He explains: “Lessors are following a path of PMA acceptance that closely mirrors where operators were a couple of decades ago: they’re currently resistant, but with growing curiosity. As that curiosity matures into a recognition that PMA can deliver a genuine competitive advantage over other lessors, adoption is likely to accelerate and, much like operators before them, not look back. The aerospace leasing market is simply too competitive for this opportunity to remain unexplored indefinitely. Lessors are beginning to understand that if operators — with far more direct exposure to these parts — have grown comfortable with PMA, there is little basis for their own hesitation. The sooner that realisation takes hold, the longer they will have to enjoy the advantage it brings.”
To conclude, Virgil D. Pizer picks up on the advantages of PMA parts in relation to potential and unnecessary grounding of aircraft owing to a lack of OEM parts. He advises that: “Lessors have traditionally approached PMA use with caution, prioritising asset conformity and remarketing flexibility. However, that view is evolving, especially for mid to-late-life engines nearing their economic end of service. The conversation has shifted from theoretical asset value to real revenue impact, as OEM part lead times increasingly keep engines off wing and aircraft out of operation. Our teams at Pem-Air work closely with lessor customers to evaluate total lifecycle cost, weighing the marginal value of OEM exclusivity against the tangible losses of downtime. For engines expected to operate through their economic end of life, PMA integration often proves the more rational choice, preserving airworthiness, shortening turnaround times, and keeping assets generating revenue. The result is a balanced view of value: one that favours operational continuity over theoretical resale premium.”
