I play indian tablas, the darbuka, djembe, and bongos. I consistently take longer in the security line and absolutely hate gate checking my instruments. I usually leave to the airport 2 hours beore my Caucasian posse of travelers.
Thanks, that's interesting to know. But does it mean you can have an instrument AND a carry-on bag?
I flew numerous time with a guitar without any problem. Only once they bothered me. I had a laptop and an electric guitar in a gig bag. They didn't allow me to take both items with me. I had to put the laptop and the guitar in the same bag.
I've never had a problem with carry both an accordion and a knapsack containing my laptops. The accordion I travel with fits handily in just about every aircraft's overhead compartment, which certain simplifies those rare moments when the flight crew gives me static about not checking or gate-checking it.
I agree with the author that getting on the plane early is important. Another good trick is to try and get seats near the rear of the plane, as many (but not all) airlines try to board the plane from the rear seats first. This gives you a better shot at getting space in one of the overhead compartments.
As a guitarist moving to NY in the new year, I've spent the last week obsessing over if I can bring precious instrument with me. Now I need to find out if this legislation applies to an american airline flying into american airspace from the UK (fingers crossed)
When flying with Iceland Air a couple of months ago (AMS -> NYC), I was surprised how incredibly smooth the whole check-in experience was. I thought I would get into trouble, because I was carrying both a backpack and a guitar (MONO Vertigo softcase), but literally nobody asked me about it.
In the US, most airlines charge for checked-in luggage in economy class. So passengers have reacted by taking carry-on luggage instead, leading to the long tedious loading times.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, you typically get one bag checked in as part of your ticket. So there's no economic incentive to try and shove half your possessions into a small overhead compartment.
Then it gets sillier when they gate-check the luggage anyhow. To deal with the problems caused by not checking luggage "for free", they are ... checking a random selection of luggage at the gate. In a less efficient manner. In a way that slows boarding.
The most amazing part is that this situation has now totally inverted the order of boarding. It used to be that boarding last or near-last was a privilege. Who the hell wants to sit in a cramped plane for even longer? Now it's a curse.
For several years now, UK regulations have allowed you to take an instrument on board as well as a carry-on. I've had to insist on it a couple of times with check-in staff.
But as a colleague told me years ago: never travel with anything you aren't prepared to lose, because You Never Know.
I'm trying to read through the cynicism and understand two parts of your post:
1. What lobbyists would have written this and most importantly, why? When I think of lobbyists I think of someone having something financial to gain. I'm not aware of a huge flying-musician lobby.
2. What tab? What penalty are we the unfortunate paying because of this?
1. According to the article, the American Federation of Musicians
2. Agreed, what tab? If the airlines can charge a fee comparable to equivalent carry on luggage, what difference does this actually make? I guess it must be against an extra surcharge for instruments, which honestly I wouldn't have thought would exist in the first place.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it outlines that if it's a comparable item to other carryon baggage, there's no additional penalty on the scarce resource of carryon storage. It's no more forcefully allocated to instruments than it is a standard other item of carryon luggage. It's just equally allocated, now.
It says a cello must be carried with no additional fee - that means the guy is getting a free seat. Which means the cost of that seat is split between the other passengers.
No, it's no additional fee beyond the ordinary cost for the ticket. It makes the revenue for a cello equivalent to a passenger--you can't charge extra because it is a cello.
No, as michaelhoffman says, the passenger may purchase a seat for the instrument, but must not be charged additional fees simply because it is an instrument and not a passenger.
You get the right to buy a ticket for your cello. The "no additional fee" bit is as michaelhoffman states: they can't charge any more for your cello's ticket than for a passenger's ticket. See http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/18/delta-no-more-frequent-f... for an example of what used to happen before this law.
It says that a cello requires purchase of another ticket, but cannot include additional fees merely because it's a cello. If anything that subsidizes other passengers because cellos don't also have carry on baggage, they don't breathe air, they weigh less than the average person, and they tend not to consume many snacks and drinks mid-flight.
A typical cello weights about 8 pounds. A hard case (not a 'flight case' that would be suitable for the cargo hold, but a hard carrying case) weighs no more than 15 lbs or so, and good ones weigh under 8 lbs. An electric cello might even fit in the overhead compartment, depending exactly how it's built! (Though you will likely have to check your amplifiers.)
1. The original post mentions that the musicians' union, the American Federation of Musicians, lobbied for this for years.
2. These items take up more than the usually allowed amount of cabin baggage space. With high flight loads these days and a high proportion of people carrying on their bags instead of checking, passengers often have to gate-check baggage. It's inconvenient at best, and at worst it results in people losing their possessions.
This measure also decreases the revenue of airlines which they will either make up by increasing prices for everyone, reducing expenditure elsewhere, or lowering profits. The latter two don't affect me that much but you might feel differently if you were an employee or shareholder of the business.
Perhaps if airlines didn't routinely destroy instruments, this crap wouldn't be necessary.
Many musicians are travelling as part of their job, which is not usually high-paid. I don't mind giving up a bit of locker space so their livelihood is preserved. Lord knows it's hard enough for artists these days as it is.
Is it really impossible to pack the instrument in a case that can withstand airline cargo handling? If I'm a musician who has to travel as part of my job, I'd think that such a case would be a "cost of doing business" and certainly tax-deductible.
Yes. Just do a cursory search on the internet, and you'll see many musicians shipping their instruments in very solid and well protected cases still getting their instruments destroyed.
I have heard, 2nd handed (friend of my dad, if I recall correctly), of a well protected double bass that was pierced through on purpose. I believe it was a routine contraband check.
Maybe those incident are not very frequents. But when you multiply that by entire orchestra travelling overseas…
That's a pretty strong assumption. I've travelled with instruments, and complied with the rules of the airlines involved as well as the government agencies involved, and still managed to get shit badly broken. I don't know of the specific case in question, but I would wager that the "moron" who packed the double bass was not, in fact, a moron.
I wasn't told. It does sound like the hole in the case (and the bass) is evidence for the absence of a security lock. On the other hand, the guy was probably a professional musician, and therefore should have known… Who knows, maybe he doesn't travel much, and made a mistake?
This is not a valid response to the comment you are replying to. It's just an appeal to emotion. It doesn't negate the fact that this is the result of a special interests group nor does it negate the fact that the cost is not provided by the musicians that now take up more cabin space.
2. It's negligible I think but if the plane is packed other passengers may have to check their bags at the gate because there isn't enough room left in the overhead after the musician stows his overly large and awkward shaped carry-on. Thus they pay in time lost after the plane lands and inconvenience of not being able to get into their carry-on during flight.
Mainly though I think the OP is just lashing out because it's sounds unfair that one person can stow an up to 165 lb, overly large piece of luggage simply because it's a musical instrument.
First of all, a desktop computer will take far, far more abuse than an instrument like a violin or a guitar. Second, a properly backed up desktop computer is easy to replace if it gets damaged, while an instrument can be pretty much impossible to replace (like a Stradivarius).
>First of all, a desktop computer will take far, far more abuse than an instrument like a violin or a guitar.
Depends on the components.
>Second, a properly backed up desktop computer is easy to replace if it gets damaged,
Doesn't change the lost time having to restore. There is a reason someone travels with electronic equipment in the first place. Second, it's not if the computer has specialized hardware (again, there is a reason someone would travel with a desktop). Third, a desktop could easily be loaded with $3000 in components. Not exactly simple to replace either.
Oh please. I've been using computers (sysadmin/devops/gamer) for decades, and I've also been a musician for decades. While the value of my instruments and computers has always been roughly the same (because I don't play classical music, where $3000 is a beginner's cello), the replace-ability isn't even close. Musicians form a close emotional and physical attachment to their instruments. I've had a laptop stolen, and I've had a bass stolen. I could care less about the laptop, and ten years later, I still dearly miss the bass. It's apples and oranges.
There is no subsidy. It says right in the law that they can be charged the comensurate rate for baggage. Or the cost of an extra ticket in the case of a cello.
The only thing it enforces is that they can't be gouged to pay extra merely for bringing a musical instrument aboard.
If you think this is good news for guitar players, it's even better news for cello players. A $3000 guitar is a fairly expensive guitar; a $3000 cello is typically a beginner/intermediate student instrument. And then you have to add a significant amount for the bow.
An airline (Royal Air Maroc) once destroyed a flight case containing a synth of mine (fortunately the synth survived, though a custom flight case isn't exactly cheap). That's why musicians are so afraid of gate checking their precious instruments.
Actually doubles as a digital piano :) It's really an excellent workhorse, I'm still using it though it's getting really old after 20 years (some keys stick down now; some have been broken and glued back in 1995). For years I've been looking for a replacement but couldn't find one worth it (real pitch/mod wheels; 2 addressable inputs; hard piano touch; integrated amplifier for quick gigs; excellent piano sound; decent Rhodes sound; actually useful equalizer; absolutely indestructible).
OTOH if you like interesting synths I have a wonderful 1976 ARP Pro DGX, and I love it but it's far less versatile than the PF :)
> Technically the airlines must comply "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section." So February 14th, 2014, BUT you don't need to mention that part when arguing with the gate attendant. It is the law and they should comply with it.
This feels like a breach of information ethics. You're presenting information to another party without a key detail that could potentially undermine your case, simply because you feel you have the moral high ground and the detail shouldn't be there in the first place.
The author believes "it is the law and they should comply with it," except for a certain element of the fine print which the author thinks is too lenient. It makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever someone openly justifies using omission as a tactic.
I apologize for my high-minded tone, sometimes I find myself falling into that style of prose. I still stand by my objection to the ethics of such an act.
Shouldn't airlines be familiar with air travel related laws? In this particular case I feel no sympathy for companies that don't stay on top of changes in their own industry.
> It makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever someone openly justifies using omission as a tactic.
You raise a good point.
I think what you're seeing in the replies is that people will use the law however they see fit to get whatever advantage they want, while allying their own morals/ethics to the case.
In this case, we're talking about ever so slightly manipulating an airline, which is likely worth billions. Most people seem OK with that. (I am too, FWIW)
If we were talking about taking advantage of an individual, I think most people would agree that's not so cool.
That doesn't affect the ethics of something. Remember, you are also screwing the other passengers on the plane that can no longer fit their bag in overhead (on full flights). Their bag is now at risk because it will need to be gate-checked.
If you fly regularly, you will realize that a substantial portion of all luggage brought on a plane technically does not pass the size dimension requirements. However, overhead compartments can still handle these "oversized" bags, and the flight attendants do not care as long as your bag is not blatantly breaking the rules. So storing a guitar on a plane? No problem. A lot of the other luggage shouldn't even be there.
> Remember, you are also screwing the other passengers on the plane that can no longer fit their bag in overhead (on full flights). Their bag is now at risk because it will need to be gate-checked.
That isn't my problem, that is the airline and security's problem. After seeing "rules" applied unequally to passengers (I had to check an identical computer bag to someone else forcing me to purchase another computer bag in the duty free shops or to actually check my laptop) I no longer care about other passengers. When the airlines and airport security apply the rules equally, then I'll care about morals and ethics on airplanes.
Right now, if I have to check my bag because some dude carried on his guitar, I failed myself to get on early enough and I'll let the airlines know I don't like it. But I won't blame the guy who carried on his guitar.
It's interesting to see how people intersect wealth and ethics. I've met people on the extreme end of the spectrum that believe shoplifting from certain chain stores is justifiable because of oppressive corporate practices.
I guess the logic here is that airlines have a lot of money, and they also have some sort of power dynamic with customers that borders on oppressive, so one would be justified in loosening their moral standards when dealing with such an entity. Not sure how I feel about that, but I guess that's one way of interacting with the world.
Nice, thanks for posting. I've been traveling between USA and South Africa with a Les Paul for a couple years now and always thought I was being sneaky avoiding the extra bag fee by taking my guitar to the gate and then either keeping it or being told to gate check it but without the fee. Didn't realize you get to do that by law.
I've done a lot of travel with bulky items (mostly bicycles) in the past, and seen a range of issues.
My first musical instrument experience was earlier this week when my wife and I checked in our sitar[1] for a flight from Bangkok to Sydney. The carrier, Qantas, wasn't able to tell us if we'd have a problem before arriving but we were pleasantly surprised that the airport checkin staff sorted it for free.
Pretty good blog, i like the other posts on CDbaby vs reverbNation et al and getting your stuff stolen, which has happened to almost every pro musician friend of mine except for pianists.
Unfortunately, a guitar in a gig bag is probably not going to survive long on commercial flights, the way people jam stuff into every last mm-cubed of the overhead bins. So flight case, or at the very least a softshell case like a Roadrunner (basically, zippered nylon fabric over lots of stryofoam)
I've traveled internationally with expensive guitars before this new law was in place. Of course, the law in question doesn't cover travel outside the US.
Here's what I do, wherever I may roam:
1. Have the instrument in a good gig bag with lots of padding, not a hardshell case.
2. Approach boarding with the gig bag hanging from the shoulder furthest away from the attendant checking your boarding pass. Try to arrange things so that you can board early.
3. This one is important: always, always be pleasant and super polite to staff. You do not want to get aggressive or demanding.
4. If asked to gate-check the guitar, don't sweat it. Let them issue you the tag. While you're walking down the jet bridge, "accidentally" drop the tag on the floor nonchalantly. Once you board the plane, if they hassle you about stowing it in overhead, ask politely if you can stow the guitar in the crew closet or in the back of the plane.
5. As a safeguard, take an all-purpose screwdriver and pack it in the gig bag. If you have a sturdy electric (like, say, a Fender Telecaster), you can easily unscrew the neck to allow you to store it in a smaller space. Obviously, I don't like doing this but it may be necessary in a jam.
> As a safeguard, take an all-purpose screwdriver and pack it in the gig bag.
After having security confiscate my small hex wrench set (part of my bike kit) and, on a different occasion, a tiny screwdriver (part of my camera's filter kit), I would recommend getting a CHEAP screwdriver.
I once travelled from the US with a guitar a few years back. I was told at check-in that instruments travelled free and had to be taken onboard. Was even ushered to the front of the boarding queue when I got there so I would be able to stow. Assumed I'd discovered an airline hack and had been considering a guitar case as a sneaky second suitcase in future.
Holy crap I did not even fathom the possibility that someone could be indignant about a person wanting to travel with his or her musical instrument.
I mean, I really don't understand this. Do you like hearing music? Do you like people playing instruments? If that is the case, then you need to expect that the situation in which a person NEEDS to take his or her instrument as a CARRY ON on an airplane occurs VERY OFTEN.
Seriously, there's a guy in this thread complaining about not being able to carry on his desktop computer, as if that were comparable to a guitar. There's another guy complaining about 'information ethics'.
The idea that a person will get any amount of hassle at all for taking an instrument on a plane directly causes less music to be made.
Music is much more important than the minor whiny bullshit people are bitching about in this thread.
86 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadI play indian tablas, the darbuka, djembe, and bongos. I consistently take longer in the security line and absolutely hate gate checking my instruments. I usually leave to the airport 2 hours beore my Caucasian posse of travelers.
Thank you for posting.
I flew numerous time with a guitar without any problem. Only once they bothered me. I had a laptop and an electric guitar in a gig bag. They didn't allow me to take both items with me. I had to put the laptop and the guitar in the same bag.
I agree with the author that getting on the plane early is important. Another good trick is to try and get seats near the rear of the plane, as many (but not all) airlines try to board the plane from the rear seats first. This gives you a better shot at getting space in one of the overhead compartments.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, you typically get one bag checked in as part of your ticket. So there's no economic incentive to try and shove half your possessions into a small overhead compartment.
Then it gets sillier when they gate-check the luggage anyhow. To deal with the problems caused by not checking luggage "for free", they are ... checking a random selection of luggage at the gate. In a less efficient manner. In a way that slows boarding.
The most amazing part is that this situation has now totally inverted the order of boarding. It used to be that boarding last or near-last was a privilege. Who the hell wants to sit in a cramped plane for even longer? Now it's a curse.
Small changes can have surprising consequences.
But as a colleague told me years ago: never travel with anything you aren't prepared to lose, because You Never Know.
When I take a guitar with me on the road, I take one of these: http://www.brunner-guitars.com/?page_id=591 Not the cheapest, but it'll fit in the overhead every time.
Lets hope they don't change it (before it takes effect !)
1. What lobbyists would have written this and most importantly, why? When I think of lobbyists I think of someone having something financial to gain. I'm not aware of a huge flying-musician lobby.
2. What tab? What penalty are we the unfortunate paying because of this?
2. Agreed, what tab? If the airlines can charge a fee comparable to equivalent carry on luggage, what difference does this actually make? I guess it must be against an extra surcharge for instruments, which honestly I wouldn't have thought would exist in the first place.
2: Cabin space is a scarce resource. When some of it is forcefully allocated to a privileged group, there is less for the rest of us.
2. These items take up more than the usually allowed amount of cabin baggage space. With high flight loads these days and a high proportion of people carrying on their bags instead of checking, passengers often have to gate-check baggage. It's inconvenient at best, and at worst it results in people losing their possessions.
This measure also decreases the revenue of airlines which they will either make up by increasing prices for everyone, reducing expenditure elsewhere, or lowering profits. The latter two don't affect me that much but you might feel differently if you were an employee or shareholder of the business.
Many musicians are travelling as part of their job, which is not usually high-paid. I don't mind giving up a bit of locker space so their livelihood is preserved. Lord knows it's hard enough for artists these days as it is.
Maybe those incident are not very frequents. But when you multiply that by entire orchestra travelling overseas…
If one is looking for the root cause of this cost, the arrow points directly at the incompetence of the airlines.
Mainly though I think the OP is just lashing out because it's sounds unfair that one person can stow an up to 165 lb, overly large piece of luggage simply because it's a musical instrument.
Depends on the components.
>Second, a properly backed up desktop computer is easy to replace if it gets damaged,
Doesn't change the lost time having to restore. There is a reason someone travels with electronic equipment in the first place. Second, it's not if the computer has specialized hardware (again, there is a reason someone would travel with a desktop). Third, a desktop could easily be loaded with $3000 in components. Not exactly simple to replace either.
The only thing it enforces is that they can't be gouged to pay extra merely for bringing a musical instrument aboard.
OTOH if you like interesting synths I have a wonderful 1976 ARP Pro DGX, and I love it but it's far less versatile than the PF :)
This feels like a breach of information ethics. You're presenting information to another party without a key detail that could potentially undermine your case, simply because you feel you have the moral high ground and the detail shouldn't be there in the first place.
The author believes "it is the law and they should comply with it," except for a certain element of the fine print which the author thinks is too lenient. It makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever someone openly justifies using omission as a tactic.
Oh, please...
You raise a good point.
I think what you're seeing in the replies is that people will use the law however they see fit to get whatever advantage they want, while allying their own morals/ethics to the case.
In this case, we're talking about ever so slightly manipulating an airline, which is likely worth billions. Most people seem OK with that. (I am too, FWIW)
If we were talking about taking advantage of an individual, I think most people would agree that's not so cool.
That doesn't affect the ethics of something. Remember, you are also screwing the other passengers on the plane that can no longer fit their bag in overhead (on full flights). Their bag is now at risk because it will need to be gate-checked.
That isn't my problem, that is the airline and security's problem. After seeing "rules" applied unequally to passengers (I had to check an identical computer bag to someone else forcing me to purchase another computer bag in the duty free shops or to actually check my laptop) I no longer care about other passengers. When the airlines and airport security apply the rules equally, then I'll care about morals and ethics on airplanes.
Right now, if I have to check my bag because some dude carried on his guitar, I failed myself to get on early enough and I'll let the airlines know I don't like it. But I won't blame the guy who carried on his guitar.
According to you and what you think is right and wrong.
As you can see from the comments, not everyone agrees with you.
I guess the logic here is that airlines have a lot of money, and they also have some sort of power dynamic with customers that borders on oppressive, so one would be justified in loosening their moral standards when dealing with such an entity. Not sure how I feel about that, but I guess that's one way of interacting with the world.
My first musical instrument experience was earlier this week when my wife and I checked in our sitar[1] for a flight from Bangkok to Sydney. The carrier, Qantas, wasn't able to tell us if we'd have a problem before arriving but we were pleasantly surprised that the airport checkin staff sorted it for free.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitar
Unfortunately, a guitar in a gig bag is probably not going to survive long on commercial flights, the way people jam stuff into every last mm-cubed of the overhead bins. So flight case, or at the very least a softshell case like a Roadrunner (basically, zippered nylon fabric over lots of stryofoam)
Here's what I do, wherever I may roam:
1. Have the instrument in a good gig bag with lots of padding, not a hardshell case.
2. Approach boarding with the gig bag hanging from the shoulder furthest away from the attendant checking your boarding pass. Try to arrange things so that you can board early.
3. This one is important: always, always be pleasant and super polite to staff. You do not want to get aggressive or demanding.
4. If asked to gate-check the guitar, don't sweat it. Let them issue you the tag. While you're walking down the jet bridge, "accidentally" drop the tag on the floor nonchalantly. Once you board the plane, if they hassle you about stowing it in overhead, ask politely if you can stow the guitar in the crew closet or in the back of the plane.
5. As a safeguard, take an all-purpose screwdriver and pack it in the gig bag. If you have a sturdy electric (like, say, a Fender Telecaster), you can easily unscrew the neck to allow you to store it in a smaller space. Obviously, I don't like doing this but it may be necessary in a jam.
After having security confiscate my small hex wrench set (part of my bike kit) and, on a different occasion, a tiny screwdriver (part of my camera's filter kit), I would recommend getting a CHEAP screwdriver.
I mean, I really don't understand this. Do you like hearing music? Do you like people playing instruments? If that is the case, then you need to expect that the situation in which a person NEEDS to take his or her instrument as a CARRY ON on an airplane occurs VERY OFTEN.
Seriously, there's a guy in this thread complaining about not being able to carry on his desktop computer, as if that were comparable to a guitar. There's another guy complaining about 'information ethics'.
The idea that a person will get any amount of hassle at all for taking an instrument on a plane directly causes less music to be made.
Music is much more important than the minor whiny bullshit people are bitching about in this thread.