"United Breaks Guitars" - Sons of Maxwell song about their terrible experience with the airline.

The article is at this link and the video is at this link.

And people wonder why I either send my guitar with a courier or rent one at my destination…

This is making the rounds on the guitar sites. Worth seeing or is the title and the effort enough to make the point?

Not bad, but Tom Paxton did it better 20 years ago.

Napster - link to Napster to play “Thank you Republic Airlines …”

The music is horrid (I can’t stand nouveau country), and went on too long (repeating verses and choruses), but the video was cute and funny.

I enjoyed it and his voice. It was kinda long however, but I do oh so love people striking back at “the man.”

Yeah, I can’t say I feel a compelling need to hear the song again, but the video is cute, and I love it that I band I had never heard of before is having their revenge on a major airline.

I have to admit that I have a huge chip on my shoulder, having had instruments mistreated in transit, having had fights with them at the check-in counter (‘No, I will not sign anything that says that you are only liable for $200. damage. The instrument is worth $800., the case is worth $100. and if you won’t let me take it on the plane even though we both know it fits in the overhead bin, your airline is assuming responsibility for it. And by the way, the suitcase that we aren’t fussing over has a suit, tux and tails in it, and the total value of that is into five digits - don’t think I wouldn’t sue for the full value if you tore them up!’). I don’t fly unless I have to any more - I’ll take the train or drive.

The sad thing is that in Europe, the baggage handlers fight over who gets to walk a musical instrument to the plane. My guitar teacher talks about touring France and Germany, and having really interesting conversations with baggage handlers about what kind of guitar he had, and what music he liked to play with it. Then he got back to Canada, where Air Cattle-Prod lets the instruments bounce down the luggage carousels to see how many times they’ll flip.

Sorry for a rant - the article covers it much more succinctly than the vid, but it’s still kinda fun…

Thank GOD my band’s appeal is too exclusive to require air travel. :smiley:

If I absolutely had to fly with it, I’d get one of those big ass (not mejum ass or little ass) rolls of bubble wrap and wrap it about a foot thick.

I do hate it when “regular people” get a pass and exemption to published company policy just because they can do something like write a song that becomes a viral video. Reminds me of Adam Savage’s cell phone bill.

Neither this guy nor Adam Savage deserve a pass.

I’m sorry, I just don’t understand you. Do you think it’s acceptable that the airline’s baggage handling wrecked a $3,500. instrument? And that the airline has refused to deal with the complaint up until this video?

It’s not like the musicians have much choice - even when I’ve bought a seat for my guitar, I’ve had to fight to get through security. If I’m not allowed to take it on the flight, then they have to assume responsibility for it. If they will do neither, they don’t deserve our business.

And, yes, instead of someone else’s guitar, that could have been your best suit. Or your laptop. Or your dog. No, I don’t know who Adam Savage is, but I’m totally on the musician’s side on this one.

A company cannot negate it’s legal responsibility with a written policy.

No one commenting on this incident was there to witness what was done to the instrument. Baggage is routinely banged up every step of the way; from check in to claim. It’s how the baggage handling system works. Every airline will advise you that checking in a musical instrument is a bad idea, especially if improperly packed. Most airlines I know of make specific exclusions for musical instruments from their baggage liability.

The airline should refuse to deal with the complaint, even now. They’re following their published policy regarding baggage claims. For one, this guy checked something that the airline is probably not liable for. Two, this guy waited quite a while after receiving his instrument to even file a claim. I’ll concede that the ground handlers shouldn’t have been tossing this guy’s guitar around as he described (if that’s how it happened–again, we’re getting one side of the story here, and I sure wasn’t there to witness it), but there exists some due diligence on the part of the passenger, as well.

Then vote with your wallet, because that’s how the game is played. Without making special arrangements, I doubt any commercial US airline is going to assume liability for your musical instrument as a checked item. If that doesn’t fly with you, you don’t have to play.

If it was my best suit, I’d make a claim as soon as I got it, if it was damaged to a degree necessitating repair or replacement. I wouldn’t check my laptop – even if the airlines assumed liability for it (which they don’t) – because I wouldn’t trust it being handled. I would never check a dog.

I’m really not on the musician’s side of this one, even after hearing his version of events. He’s pissed because United actually upheld their part of the agreement–and he’s getting a free pass because he’s good at giving negative PR to get his way.

And what is it you believe United’s legal responsibility to be

Exactly what I thought of the instant I saw the thread title :cool:

The same as if I went down the row of overheads and ripped them off their hinges in an act of wanton destruction. We’re not talking about a scuffed piece of luggage. The guitar was properly stored in a hard case and per the description in the post the case was seen being mishandled. The airlines do not have carte blanche to destroy your possessions.

There’s no evidence that the airline did any such thing. I’m not jumping on the “United sucks” bandwagon just because the guy who’s got a huge stake in the incident says they were mishandling his bags. It’s equally likely the ground handlers were doing their job just fine. Bags aren’t treated like babies, and one man’s “toss” is another man’s “throw.”

There is no “proper storage” when it comes to musical instruments being treated as luggage. Airlines routinely exclude them from liability through contract for this very reason. Any number of things can happen to an instrument, even “properly stored,” from the time it goes on the baggage belt at the ticket counter until it’s picked up in another city. Manual security screening can be an issue, belt jams, items being stacked atop one another, other baggage falling while in flight, etc.

Not that I distrust the guy, but consider the other side. This guy claims to have witnessed mishandling to the point of abuse, but doesn’t even open the case upon receipt, and makes a claim for damage some time later.

Absent proof of any wanton act of destruction or negligence, I can’t fault United for following their policy. But I can fault this guy for trying to get around the rules by shaming them into settling.

You aren’t looking at the big picture. The more careful your standards of handling, the more it costs. Handling things mechanically and with little specific personal care costs very, very much less than bespoke careful handling of delicate things.

What you want is for me to pay more so the cost of handling your higher than average value, more fragile than average instrument gets covered.

Explain to me how this is fair.

Yes, there is proper storage of an instrument. He could have had it in a soft case. It should have survived normal baggage handling that includes belt jams and flight turbulence. People who fly are limited by overhead storage as to what they can travel with.

You appear to have information not relayed in this thread. According to the article he immediately alerted airline employees and nowhere does it say he waited to file. I’d ask you for a cite for further consideration of your point.

There may be more to the story but there isn’t much excuse for mishandling luggage. Airlines move freight in addition to luggage and are expected to transport it intact.

You’re right – it probably should have. But the airlines know that it might not, and contractually limit their liability accordingly.

Then people who fly with fragile items should be prepared to either
a) Accept the risk associated with it (conveyed by the airline’s clear release of liability for such items), or
b) Choose another means of conveyance if (a) is not acceptable

Sorry, from the author’s mouth (bolding mine):

He alerted a flight attendant during his connection. Despite “no employees visible,” there’s always an airline representative available at the airport when a flight is arriving or departing. Such is the reason for “Luggage/Baggage Service Offices.”

If I were to travel with a Very Expensive Thing, and saw it being mistreated to the degree Dave describes, you better bet the first thing I’d do is open it up and check it out as soon as it got back into my hands.

There’s no evidence of mishandling the luggage, either. We’ve got one man’s amateur perspective, as seen from inside an airplane.

Yes, it is.

Why?

I understand that accidents happen. And I understand that an airline wouldn’t want to be on the hook for damaging something valuable. But it’s like they’ve adopted that attitude so deeply that nothing can be their fault. There’s really no reason for any luggage to be thrown (or even tossed) around like a beach ball; even less when it’s clearly something like a guitar.

I’m reminded of an interview I read with Michael Palin. He was talking about the inspiration for the Dead Parrot Sketch. He was taking his car to the mechanic, and no matter what he said was wrong with it, the mechanic’s reply was “oh, that’s bound to happen,” or “you’ve got to expect that with this model.” It’s like nothing was ever wrong; nothing was ever his fault. United, those baggage handlers work for you. You are responsible, and you can tell them what to do. If an accident still happens, we can live with it. But please, don’t treat the suitcases like punching bags and then shrug and say “nothing we can do about that.”

Yup, they can tell baggage handlers what to do. They can supervise the “lowest common denominator” type guys who take those sorts of jobs very closely. They can instal cameras and monitor them. They can employ more guys so there’s less time pressure and need to hurry. They can do all sorts of things.

All these measures cost. Meantime, 99% of baggage is fine. In my experience (and a lot of other people’s) getting it right most of the time has one cost, getting it right almost all the time has a cost that can be orders of magnitude higher.

You’re fine with paying for this? I’m not. Not when myself and most others aren’t carrying anything high value or fragile.

It is, admittedly, a brutal system, but it’s cost effective overall.

Because that’s how the system is designed. To find a happy medium between “lowest cost” and “highest quality.” As Princhester points out, the vast majority of the time, baggage makes it through without a problem. But because there are so many variables, so many automations, and so many different machines and people handling the process, something fragile can easily be broken.

I’ve yet to see any kind of proof that the baggage in this instance was mishandled.