Not necessarily. The tracking involves a lot of third parties since Boeing contracts out a lot of subassemblies.
A lot of the planes are titanium, carbon fiber, and aluminum. Steel fatigues faster than aluminum under repeated stress, so steel parts are often replaceable, and in fact are replaced after some time depending on actual service life and detected fractures.
Every six years a passenger plane is almost completely gutted and inspected:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ucture-inspection-happen-in-practice-for-mode
This costs between 5-7 million dollars each time, and is the reason airplane frames in the US are rarely older than 24 years, the cost just doesn't make sense at that age. Critical members undergo ultrasonic testing which can detect fractures and fatigue the human eye can't see.
As far as metal usage in the cars, you might see rust earlier, and you might see metal fatigue earlier, but after 10 years most cars are considered junkers, so if the metal is more likely to rust, chances are no one will notice.
The only thing that might matter is whether the frame or crush members fail inappropriately during a crash. This would be very difficult to prove even under lab conditions. So even if the metal wasn't to spec it's likely that 1) it wouldn't materially affect a crash and even if it did 2) it would be very hard to detect that it was a metal spec failure.
This is certainly going to send reverbations through the industry, and a lot of lawsuits will undoubtedly follow as other corporations get their pound of flesh (and look at blaming some of their issues on the metal to offload liability)
But the end result on the consumer is probably small.