Brazilian airline GOL returned two nearly new Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft after just a few months. They’ve been flown to the Arizona desert and appear to be the first 737 MAXs intentionally being scrapped.
Both o the planes reportedly suffered “chronic factory problems” involving their LEAP-1B engines and had center of gravity issues. If it were just engine issues, it’s not clear the planes would be getting parted out.
- Plane one: Registered PS-GRM first flew July 25, 2025. It was delivered September 17, and stopped normal service at the beginning of February 2026.
- Plane two: Registered PS-GRN first flew October 9, 2025. It was delivered November 11, and stopped normal service at the beginning of February as well.
The two planes each spent just a few months in service and then sat at Belo Horizonte for about seven weeks before being returned to their lessor. So it seems that what’s going on is:
- Chronic problems originating at the factory.
- Trouble involving their CFM LEAP-1B engines.
- A center-of-gravity problem.
- Higher maintenance time and operating costs as a result.
- Problems serious enough that GOL decided not to keep them.
- A planned dismantling at Pinal Airpark in Arizona.
On February 9, while the aircraft were still at Belo Horizonte, there was reporting that the two planes were performing below expectations and spending more time in the hangar than comparable aircraft.
In May it was reported that a parts company had acquired two approximately one-year-old 737 MAXs for teardown, describing them as the first MAX aircraft to enter the part out market. The lessor is now advertising “first-to-market” 737 MAX material from low-utilization aircraft.
The planes are being described as coming from a “problematic batch” but that doesn’t look right – they were produced over 100 planes apart from each other (line number 9264 and 9370).
Update: A Gol spokesperson shares,
GOL clarifies that the return of the aircraft registered as PS-GRM and PS-GRN took place on March 28, 2026, driven strictly by commercial decisions between the Company and the lessor, with no technical factors related to the Boeing 737 MAX 8. Any decisions regarding the allocation or disposition of these aircraft following this date were made independently of GOL. The Company currently operates 57 aircraft of this model in its fleet, all performing regular, safe, and efficient operations.
Fleet management activities, including aircraft returns and acquisitions, are standard practice in the airline industry.
*slow clap* …for short-term shareholder profits over peoples’ lives and livelihoods.
Really bad look for both CFM and for Boeing…
Frankenplane. Shouldn’t be allowed in the skies.
Really strange story. There has to be more to this.
737 has no tail fuel, so ‘CG issues’ is mysterious, but maybe related to FQIS.
‘Chronic factory issues related to the engines’ (confirmed implication from the translated reference article) doesn’t necessarily point at Boeing, which installs the CFMI engines.
But not unusual that Boeing is sued even if the issues are primarily around the engines.
Were these two planes built on the Monday after the Super Bowl?
The 737 structure has gone through many generations since entering service in 1968.
Many of the issues with the MAX series relate to the fact that the design is old.
Meanwhile the A32x series continues to eat Boeing’s Lunch and not only competes with the 737 but also the now end of life 757 series.
I’m amazed that Boeing has not tried a clean sheet of paper and started the multi-year process of building a new airplane.
I could believe the “Chronic problems originating at the factory” excuse….though it’s not clear which factory is THE factory (Boeing’s or CFM’s) and I absolutely believe the “Trouble involving their CFM LEAP-1B engines” excuse because that’s a known issue. The “Higher maintenance time and operating costs as a result” could be a direct reference to the engine problems. But the “center-of-gravity problem” sounds like rubbish. I could believe it if these were two from the earliest MAXs but they’re not. If there was a factory induced center of gravity issue with the MAX it should be systemic in nature and not confined to two measely planes.
Unless Gol is saying the engines are producing a center of gravity problem. Then I could believe it.
If it’s a Boeing, you shouldn’t be going. Seriously, how are these people still allowed to build planes and let people onto them?
@Lance — I should warn you, I may have a cold… *cough* excessive greed *cough* criminal negligence *cough* blatant corruption *cough*
Anti American left (a redundancy, I know, hating America it’s a pillar of their sick ideology) drooling with this news
@BBK — Wanting an iconic American manufacturer to focus on engineering safety over C-suite stock games isn’t “anti-American” or “left”… true patriots demand quality from American companies; political hacks just make excuses for corporate negligence.
@BBK If the American left hated the USA, we would be cheerleading for Donald Trump and his incompetent and corrupt Administration. We would also make excuses for the shoddy output from our industrial elite.
@BBK woah buddy, what’s with the lashing out. A lot of misplaced anger there. Hope you get that resolved before that toxicity calcifies.
Unskilled union workers hired under a DEI corporate regime (Boeing is a classic left-wing Seattle company). Predictably, they are now paying the price through shoddy workmanship, low quality standards, and a company that cares more about personal pronouns than engineering excellence.
@It’s a Fact 1990 — Nope. None of that. You are not a serious person.
Not the engines. Over a thousand were built in 2025 and they could be swapped for new ones.
The plane? If there is a hot parts market with long wait times then parting out recent examples might make economic sense.
Glad that they’re sharing out parts of planes so defective that they’re literally being removed from service while new. That way lots of planes can share the problems.
@BBK – MY America stands for stands for making a quality product. Apparently yours doesn’t.
Does this type of thing happen to newer model Airbus jets? The “bad batch” theory doesn’t appear to be true since their line numbers were more than 100 aircraft apart from each other. These planes are routinely in the headlines for some problem or another.
Reading the comments from a bunch of amateurs is interesting as everyone has their own reason for the troubled airplane’s problems. The political comments have now become common as the right wing nuts blame everything on the left. Everything! Only stupid followers believe the shit that comes out of the government ballroom errr… the White House. Really.
@Cody — Sorry, we mere ‘mortals’ weren’t good enough for you, my liege. Thanks for pretending ‘politics’ has had no impact on Boeing over the past decade. Also, nice ‘both sides’-ism. You got us so good. *burp*
There is what’s reported, there is what the airline says, and there is reality.
The planes were leased. If they were defective, they would have been retured to the lessor.
The lessor would have had them evaluated to see if they could be repaired and put back out on the market for another lease.
So we really need to hear from the lessor what the evaluation report says.
Also did Boeing simply offer the lessor a new slot in their line to replace them at a discount with the condition they be scrapped?