If I understand correctly there was a case inside another case. This was more than sufficient packaging on the part of the owner. You cannot write off liability simply with a written policy. If it was a $3500 guitar then the repair of it was certainly within the scope of normal liabilities that airlines operate under.
Are you saying this by way of a moral principal, or a legal one? If the latter, can you describe the law applicable? I’m a transport lawyer but not a US transport lawyer and I don’t usually do air law. However, my very faint understanding is that there are international conventions by which airlines are entitled to limit their liability for injury and property loss, and there may well also be the possibility to do so by contract or under domestic law.
So do you actually know, or are you speculating? And if the former, fill us in on the details.
A few points -
-
How do you suggest musicians get from one place to another with their instruments? Halifax, NS to Omaha, Nebraska in one day has to be flown.
-
The laptop example from above is a good one. No, I would never check my laptop, either. However, if the airline insisted that I check my laptop or not fly, what then? Why am I responsible for the damage done to it once it is out of my hands? Substitute ‘musical instrument’ for ‘laptop’ - this is what happens to musicians all the time.
-
The policies vary from airline to airline, and are not consistently enforced. Sometimes, you get lucky and get to take your guitar on board as carry-on luggage. Sometimes, you’re allowed what is called a gate check - you get to walk with it to the gate at which point a baggage handler will walk it down to the cargo hold of the plane. Sometimes, you have to go to the ‘Special Services’ area where it’s out of your control. Sometimes, you get some special security treatment - once, they rubbed the little cloth on the soundboard of my steel string.
(Once, I got to watch someone with ten pounds of metal keys around his neck bend over my good classical and try to peer into the sound hole - I asked him politely to take the keys off before he scratched the top. He’d never considered for a second that he might damage an instrument that way. As I said earlier, even when I’ve bought a seat for my instrument, it has been a security hassle. Musicians traveling with instruments are often treated as a pain in the ass in North America.)
One of the really frustrating aspects of all of this is - you’re more likely to get to carry your guitar on board if it’s packed in the smallest, lightest, least protective gig bag. If you are denied, your guitar is now fucked. If, on the other hand, you show up with the thing protected, the airline’s representatives now have a point when they say it’s too big to carry on the plane. This is one of the best guides I’ve found, but the fact of the matter is that the musician is at the mercy of the airline, and the person in the airport which represents it.
-
The level of care that my instrument requires is the level of care I expect for all baggage. You may think me unreasonable - I don’t care.
-
Thousands of guitars fly every day, and don’t get smashed. The fact that a guitar is in a double case and gets damaged is prima facie evidence of mishandling, in my book.
-
As I have said before, my reaction to all of this is to take the train or drive whenever that is possible. When it is not, I carefully consider - do I need one of my instruments, or can I just rent/borrow one at the other end? If I feel I have to take one of my instruments, my solution is to ship it with a courier. The courier companies at least seem to care about their reputations, and I haven’t had a problem yet.
-
The bottom line for me is - I think it’s great if United takes a massive PR hit on this! It shouldn’t have happened in the first place; then, they had their chance to resolve the issue and they blew it. They can join the list of airlines I don’t want to fly.
Or, I’ll put it another way - the first airline that says in writing that I can take my guitar on board with me so that I know where it is and how it’s being treated for the entire flight gets all my business; even if there’s no meal, even if the flight attendants are surly and ugly, even if I have to make five connections to get from Toronto to Calgary, they win! Anybody gonna step up to the plate on that one? No? Then I continue to rate airlines based on how they treat luggage, and how they settle when they do screw up. United just got a ‘Fail’.
You have a special need and it’s not catered for. I understand that and it sucks no doubt, but I don’t think the world owes you a solution, or at least not for nothing.
I’m very interested in the answer to this question because you’ve just written about two hundred words without mentioning the topic once: how much are you prepared to pay? I understand you want something but till you tell me you’re prepared to pay for what you want, you’re just whining.
It’s not a question of you being unreasonable. It’s a question of being out of line with the herd. If everyone wants great handling, then no doubt that would be catered for. But what people want is cheap. Until it’s their thing that gets broken, and then they want special treatment.
Sure the guitar was probably mishandled: if you think that is relevant, you’re not listening.
Dave Carroll and his video were on the morning TV news in Canada today. If a national newscast is any indication, United seems to be taking a PR hit.
As an aside, I caught the Sons of Maxwell at a festival some years back. They’re worth the effort if you get the chance.
**Princhester **- just how special is the need? You don’t hear **Le Ministre **saying he won’t pay - he has covered different scenarios, including buying a seat for the guitar. But if the airline does NOT allow the guitar in the main cabin, the guitar is properly packed and is damaged in baggage - how can they NOT cover the damages? In other words, this isn’t about paying for safe transit, its about policies that are no-win AND inconsistent. Simply folding one’s arms and saying “accept reality and be prepared to pay” doesn’t acknowledge the source of the frustration.
Well, as I say, I don’t see it as special treatment, I see it as how all baggage should be treated.
That being said, I do pay extra - I either buy another seat (Last times I did that, I didn’t pay full fare x2, it was more like 75% or 85% for the extra seat.), rent an instrument at my destination (That’s fine for practice & songwriting, okay for gigs that don’t require anything special, but not very good if the instrument required is a classical or a good electric - the electric rental instruments tend to be 2nd rate copies.), or ship it by air cargo/courier (This has worked out pretty well for me over the last couple of years - it has come out to around 200. - 300. CAD when I’ve needed a particular instrument.)
As I’ve said above, it has also changed my travel patterns - if the train were a viable option between Toronto and Calgary, I’d take it despite the extra time and expense. Certainly Toronto - Ottawa or Toronto - Montréal is much easier for me on the train.
So, no, I don’t mean to be whining, and I apologize if that’s how it comes across. I do pay extra for my special needs - I just don’t think it’s fair that I have to, and when I’ve gone to that trouble and expense, it ticks me off to see someone else in the airport lounge who has managed to talk their way in past security with their guitar. However, trying to carry your instrument on a plane is a crap shoot, and I’m paying extra (sometimes as much as 175% of the ticket price) for the certainty.
I prefer the courier option partly because I resent paying the airline for an extra seat - that’s like rewarding them for not taking proper care of my stuff. And as I say, I think the standard treatment for my guitar is what should be standard for all luggage.
You seem to be asking for extraordinary evidence here…when the case was opened, the well-protected guitar was smashed. Are you claiming that if that happened to you, you would just shrug and say “must have been sunspots” and not consider the luggage handling to be the overwhelmingly likely culprit and not expect a claim with the airline to be taken seriously? When the baggage leaves your sight at check in, what possible means does a passenger have to “prove” mishandling to the level of evidence that you require?
If the airlines installed a luggage-bypass system where a certain percentage of bags were routed through a wood-chipper, would you be ok with that as long as their “accidental wood-chipper” disclaimer was properly listed in fine print on their website?
I always carry my guitar or banjo (or mando, but that’s easy) on board. Never had a major hassle. The trick:
-
Don’t ask. Walk up to the gate with it as if you always do it that way. They are trained to say no if asked.
-
Immediately buck any issues to the next level of supervisor. Be prepared to delay the plane and make a stink. Never had to, but friends have. They DO have room up front if not overhead, but it’s in their best interest to try to have you gate check the instrument. Do not allow this. Simply politely and calmly insist on taking on the plane yourself.
-
Have a copy of this letter: http://www.indie-music.com/downloads/AFM_carryon.pdf (warning, pdf) detailing the negotiated agreement between AFM (American Federation of Musicians) and the TSA/Homeland Security chief in 2002. A peon won’t even look at it, a supervisor will look at it and immediately clear you, in my experience. Three times I’ve pulled it out, and three times the supe let me on, quite quickly.
-
Be calm, polite and as charismatic as you can be. Perception is reality. Most performers have some degree of charisma anyway. Use it to your adavantage.
Excellent link, picker. Often the best weapon against irrational procedures is to trump them with their own documentation. I work in the aircraft industry, and nothing is more valuable than a statement on FAA or TSA letterhead.
United corporate cried uncle.
Gotta love this quote:
Very punny!
They also apparently like the video, at least for one reason:
You are a luckier person than I - I’ve rarely got to take it on board. Even when the instrument has a ticket, I’ve been given the runaround and hassled. Without the ticket, well, it’s just not worth it to even try anymore. Canadian rules are slightly different, anyway - they were written by someone named François Quaphqua.
Normal luggage handling can damage even well-packed things. Sometimes, the airlines pay for those things. Other things, though, that are explicitly excluded from liability thanks to various conventions and treaties under which airline baggage contracts are governed, don’t often get paid for. This isn’t the first time someone’s checked a musical instrument against advice, and it won’t be the last. And this isn’t the first time a claim has been denied because the person wanted to check it anyway, and it won’t be the last.
Look, I’m not pointing fingers either way here. There’s no way to know if United’s handling actually broke it – we won’t ever know at what point the instrument was broken since Carroll didn’t report the damage in a timely maner.
It’s quite possible that he packed it perfectly, and United used it for target practice. On the other hand, it’s quite possible that it wasn’t properly packed for the elements. I can put an egg in a hard case, and put that case inside a cushioned case, but it’ll probably break on the way anyway.
The point is, we don’t know. And IMHO, Carroll lost the benefit of the doubt when he failed to exercise due diligence in establishing that damage was caused by United handlers (assuming that United is even liable for such damage) and decided to shame United into giving him what he wanted when they tried to uphold the terms they both agreed to.