This paper shows that the certification system for commercial aircraft ensures the technological competitiveness of Boeing as an aircraft manufacturer.

First, through the development and production of aircraft, Boeing has accumulated experience, knowledge, and know-how about federal aviation regulations in the United States. These are reflected in its in-house sharing system for specifications, materials, and certification plans.

Second, Boeing is often involved in the development of federal aviation regulations, so its engineers understand them from their origins.

Third, Boeing has been able to control development costs and manufacturing times by not applying federal aviation regulations, or omitting testing, when changing materials sources for existing aircraft and when developing derivative aircraft.

Fourth, the delegation of certification authority from the Federal Aviation Administration （FAA） gives Boeing an advantage over other firms. Having Boeing’s in-house engineers become FAA representatives （company Designated Engineering Representative （DER） and Boeing Organization Designation Authority Engineering Unit Member （ODA E-Um）） shortens and streamlines the certification process by eliminating the need for explanations in testing and inspections, compared to requesting approval from FAA engineers or third-party consultant DERs. In addition, the FAA’s delegation of authority has shifted from the FAA appointing individual agents to the FAA designating Boeing as the organization and Boeing appointing the agents, thus minimizing the FAA’s involvement in the process and increasing the number of agents under the manufacturer’s control.

With the above in mind, the certification system serves as a social factor that ensures Boeing’ s technological competitiveness. In general, technology monopolies lead to market monopolies, but this technology monopoly is guaranteed by the social institutions of the state. In the aerospace industry, Western companies are able to capture markets by spreading risk through the international division of labor, but this can only be achieved on the basis of technological competitiveness, which is grounded in social institutions supported by the state.