NTSB identifies Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 in door plug blowout as N704AL
The aircraft involved in the January 2024 incident has been identified as N704AL, according to the NTSB case record.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 7:40 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 7:40 a.m. ETFirst report
NTSB Final Report on Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 Door Plug Blowout
The NTSB's final report on the January 5, 2024, incident involving an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 found that the jet's left mid exit door plug was missing four critical installation bolts, and faulted Boeing's safety and quality processes, according to airlinegeeks.com. The incident occurred during climb near Portland, Oregon, and resulted in three injuries and no fatalities, the outlet reported.
The aircraft, registered N704AL, is a Boeing 737 MAX 9, according to aircraft registry records. The NTSB case record DCA24MA063 matches the incident. The investigation is closed with a final cause determination.
Alaska Airlines, the operator, has a prior incident involving a Boeing 737-890 (N516AS) in Santa Ana, California, on August 21, 2023, according to NTSB records. That history does not indicate a cause for this incident.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Reference data
From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
- Registration
- N704AL
- Type
- Boeing 737 MAX 9
- Operator of record
- Alaska Airlines
- Terrain elevation
- 62 ft
- Nearest aerodrome
- 6.0 miles SW of Portland International Airport (KPDX/PDX)
Sources
- Court Throws Out Lawsuit Over 737 MAX Door Plug Blowoutairlinegeeks.com
Revision history
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 11:52current
First published.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 11:40current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.