Boeing related train derailment in Montana

That hurts. I thought taking the train was safer,than going by air.
 
Somewhere an insurance company is collectively screaming in agony....
 
I liked a couple comments about this being the work of "Eco-terrorists" :dunno:
 
Sounds like some serious explanation on that 337 if they do salvage it. Who in their right mind would by it off the line though.....
 
I just can not imagine them using any of this.

Back in my college years we had a Brand New Camaro that just rolled off a train while being loaded. It had a plague on the dash to this and said it could never be licensed for road use or titled. It had 3 miles on it.

There was not one scratch on this car. We cut it up into a couple pieces.

Tony
 
I would think potential liability, should something happen to one of those fuselages in flight, would prevent Boeing from using them.
 
Think the train pilot tried z zoom climb? :D
 
us AAirways said:
He didn't want to embarrass himself by slowing the train down to take a curve. :D
Click to expand...



Actually, I have it on authority that the train conductor was a recently placed former cruise ship captain.

A female passenger has come forward and said "he was showing me the engine compartment and the scenery when the train derailed."

:goofy:
 
Zeldman said:
No. They belong to the insurance company now. More than likely they will be shredded and recycled.
Click to expand...

Boing is pretty large, there may not be an insurance company involved.
 
I would think they would be shipped back to the factory and run through QC final check. If they pass send them back for assembly.
 
Badger said:
Probably trains insurance co.
Click to expand...

Those are special cars, probably also Boeing owned. But yes, they will go after Montana Rail Link for the damage.
 
weilke said:
Those are special cars, probably also Boeing owned. But yes, they will go after Montana Rail Link for the damage.
Click to expand...

I was asking a buddy in the petrochem biz the other day who owns rolling stock--railroads or product manufacturers. He said that generally, all the rolling stock is owned by companies other than the railroad, with one exception:

"If it derails, the RR just bought it."
 
Geico266 said:
I would think they would be shipped back to the factory and run through QC final check. If they pass send them back for assembly.
Click to expand...

That's a possibility but given future liability should one of them have a problem I must respectfully disagree. Lawyers would have a field day should that happen. There's also the question of would an airline accept one of them.
 
Jim_R said:
I was asking a buddy in the petrochem biz the other day who owns rolling stock--railroads or product manufacturers. He said that generally, all the rolling stock is owned by companies other than the railroad, with one exception:

"If it derails, the RR just bought it."
Click to expand...
It's easy to tell -- look at the reporting marks on the side of each car (if they're not covered by graffiti). If the reporting mark ends in an 'X' (e.g., "ABCX 381635") then it's owned by a non-railroad entity.
 
Norman said:
That's a possibility but given future liability should one of them have a problem I must respectfully disagree. Lawyers would have a field day should that happen. There's also the question of would an airline accept one of them.
Click to expand...

If it goes through and passes QC Boeing is not going to reject them. They meet the specs. ..Because they were in a crash means nothing but voodoo scarry stuff. Many planes and parts are damaged and repaired back to specs and used in new and used planes. If the repairs are sanctioned repairs there is nothing wrong with the repaired parts.

There are procedures inplace to deal with these kinds of situations. Granted a train wreck might not have been on their mind at the time the procedures were written. ;). :lol:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
If it goes through and passes QC Boeing is not going to reject them. They meet the specs. ..Because they were in a crash means nothing but voodoo scarry stuff. Many planes and parts are damaged and repaired back to specs and used in new and used planes. If the repairs are sanctioned repairs there is nothing wrong with the repaired parts.

There are procedures inplace to deal with these kinds of situations. Granted a train wreck might not have been on their mind at the time the procedures were written. ;). :lol:
Click to expand...

They will be scrapped. Boeing does not need any liability arising years later to come back and haunt them.

And consider this: Those airframes have line production numbers meaning they are already sold to a customer. The customer is expecting a new "off the shelf" airplane, not a "damaged and repaired" new airplane.
 
Geico266 said:
If it goes through and passes QC Boeing is not going to reject them. They meet the specs. ..Because they were in a crash means nothing but voodoo scarry stuff. Many planes and parts are damaged and repaired back to specs and used in new and used planes. If the repairs are sanctioned repairs there is nothing wrong with the repaired parts.

There are procedures inplace to deal with these kinds of situations. Granted a train wreck might not have been on their mind at the time the procedures were written. ;). :lol:
Click to expand...

For the 7 months or so I worked in aircraft part sales, I quickly learned that any part that had been in an accident related aircraft when it happened, even if it clearly had nothing to do with the accident, became pretty much unsellable. People wouldn't touch them, that stigma of accident related for some reason scared people off even though the part could be sent through a shop and overhauled just fine. I think it's more of an overreaction to be honest, most companies had it written in their guidelines to never accept them and it just caught on. :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
If it goes through and passes QC Boeing is not going to reject them. They meet the specs. ..Because they were in a crash means nothing but voodoo scarry stuff. Many planes and parts are damaged and repaired back to specs and used in new and used planes. If the repairs are sanctioned repairs there is nothing wrong with the repaired parts.

There are procedures inplace to deal with these kinds of situations. Granted a train wreck might not have been on their mind at the time the procedures were written. ;). :lol:
Click to expand...

You mean like the L1011 parts from the Eastern plane that went down in the Everglades & were later installed on other planes? Meeting specs like that?

I would give almost certain odds that the fuselage parts will be scrapped. Boeing doesn't want future liability should anything happen.
 
While we know the NTSB will be called, will it be investigate as an accident? Or is it just an incedent? What's the FAA say?
 
silver-eagle said:
While we know the NTSB will be called, will it be investigate as an accident? Or is it just an incedent? What's the FAA say?
Click to expand...

NTSB, sure. But why would the FAA be involved? Why would they even care?

That assumes your post was serious.
 
Great opportunity for back country vacation home structures.
 
overdrive148 said:
For the 7 months or so I worked in aircraft part sales, I quickly learned that any part that had been in an accident related aircraft when it happened, even if it clearly had nothing to do with the accident, became pretty much unsellable. People wouldn't touch them, that stigma of accident related for some reason scared people off even though the part could be sent through a shop and overhauled just fine. I think it's more of an overreaction to be honest, most companies had it written in their guidelines to never accept them and it just caught on. :dunno:
Click to expand...

More likely they're concerned about liability.

-Rich
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Certain models are worth more than others and depending on the level of damage the model type may/may not make sense to repair. The demand for a 700 is going to be a lot lower than an 800.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference in this case. It's not like Boeing is building random aircraft and then sells them off in a store trying to get the highest price. These fuselages had a serial number on them and were part of planes that had been ordered years ago.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Certain models are worth more than others and depending on the level of damage the model type may/may not make sense to repair. The demand for a 700 is going to be a lot lower than an 800.
Click to expand...

Again, Boeing (or any other aircraft manufacturer) are not going to repair and try to sell a damaged airframe as new.

1) Liability. If a problem surfaces down the road and it's traced back to the rail damage, Boeing is incurring huge liability.

2) The customer is buying a new airplane and expecting a new airplane, not a repaired one.

3) These are not GA airplanes. Most of the skins are stressed and milled. This is a pressure vessel.

This is why there is insurance. These are a write off.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Again, Boeing (or any other aircraft manufacturer) are not going to repair and try to sell a damaged airframe as new.

1) Liability. If a problem surfaces down the road and it's traced back to the rail damage, Boeing is incurring huge liability.

2) The customer is buying a new airplane and expecting a new airplane, not a repaired one.

3) These are not GA airplanes. Most of the skins are stressed and milled. This is a pressure vessel.

This is why there is insurance. These are a write off.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying it will be done, but it certainly could be done. JAL rebuilt a DC-8 that came out of the Bay in SFO, certainly salt water is going to be much worse on an airframe than freshwater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top