They Tried To Make Me Check My Tuba, I Said No, No, No

[circusboy]

They Tried To Make Me Check My Tuba, I Said No, No, No

by Daryl P. Friedman

Life just got simpler for musicians flying with their instruments, and in some strange way, we have Amy Winehouse to thank for it.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Boring name. Cool result. Tucked in the massive, 145-page bill is a provision that at long last standardizes instrument carry-on policy, giving musicians the certainty and clarity they deserve.

The bill was signed into law two days after the GRAMMYs, and in fact the GRAMMYs played a role in its passage, as did Winehouse, bluegrass legend Earl Scruggs, and an 81-year-old cigar-smoking Republican congressman from North Carolina named Howard Coble.

To understand how this unlikely cast of characters coalesced into a victory for musicians, let's rewind. For nearly a decade, our friends and allies at the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) have sought to solve a problem for musicians traveling by air: Each airline had its own rule about carrying on instruments. Musicians dreamed of having a clear, consistent policy, but the only way to accomplish that is to mandate it through legislation. A solution was placed in a draft House bill, but the dream was stalled for years. At last year's GRAMMYs on the Hill Advocacy Day, this issue was one of the key lobbying talking points as we walked the halls of Congress with our AFM brothers and sisters.

The House provision was inserted by someone who might seem as an unlikely champion, Greensboro, N.C. Congressman Coble. But to those of us who know him, Coble is a friend of music makers and intellectual property, and the recipient of the 2002 GRAMMYs on the Hill Award.

Let's let the National Journal (Feb. 18, 2011) take it from here:

"You see, Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., who pushed the [instrument] language in a House markup this week, is a groupie for both [Scruggs and Winehouse].

"Ed McDonald, Coble's chief of staff, told National Journal Daily that his boss's vested interest comes from a longtime friendship with bluegrass legend and fellow North Carolinian Earl Scruggs, whom Coble presented with a [Recording Academy Lifetime Achievement Award] in 2008. But friends and constituents alike might be surprised at what they'd find on Coble's playlist.

"'Usually, the modern stuff goes right over his head,' McDonald said. 'But one time we were at a [GRAMMY] rehearsal — he's always been involved in the music industry — and he heard Amy Winehouse and told me, 'You know, I really like that rehab song.' I can tell you, it was something I never thought I'd hear Howard Coble say.'

"The Senate passed a version of the reauthorization bill on Thursday; there is no timeline yet for the FAA measure to hit the House floor. Once it does, though, you can bet Coble will be there with bells — or headphones — on."

One year later, the bill has passed with the instrument provision. Traveling with your guitar? Bring it on board and place it in any available compartment where it fits. Afraid to check that prized Guarneri Cello? Buy it a seat and have it travel on the plane next to you. Regardless of the carrier, the rules are now clear and standardized.

So next time you're flying home from a gig on a red-eye and your instrument is safely tucked into the bin above you, look down at the lights below and thank Howard Coble.

Then look up at the lights above and thank Amy Winehouse.

[sloan]

This is a serious question: why should musicians receive preferential treatment for their oversize and overweight cabin baggage?

If your answer is that the AFM worked the political system to put it into law...please
re-think the logic of that answer.

Do not other air passengers have similarly important, expensive, and fragile items that they might like to carry on the plane? What is is, precisely, that gives preference to "musical instruments"?

You may be excused for thinking that this is a troll - but I assure you it's a sincere question.

[gwwilk]

This is a serious question: why should musicians receive preferential treatment for their oversize and overweight cabin baggage?

If your answer is that the AFM worked the political system to put it into law...please
re-think the logic of that answer.

Do not other air passengers have similarly important, expensive, and fragile items that they might like to carry on the plane? What is is, precisely, that gives preference to "musical instruments"?

You may be excused for thinking that this is a troll - but I assure you it's a sincere question.

What other bulky, fragile items that are vital to some people's livelihood who travel nationally and internationally during the course of their work did you have in mind? Camera and video equipment can be fragile and bulky, yet when broken down aren't nearly as bulky as our instruments. There is an entire industry devoted to providing relatively inexpensive, waterproof, shockproof, and nearly indestructible cases for camera equipment. Check out HPRC's offerings at http://www.plaber.com/. I wouldn't trust expensive gear to anything less.

I'm sure you had something in mind, but my aging cerebrum hasn't yet seized upon it.

[sloan]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

[pgym]

What other bulky, fragile items that are vital to some people's livelihood who travel nationally and internationally during the course of their work did you have in mind?

[/quote]

I'll do you one better: portable dialysis units--most of which are too large to fit in overhead bins or under seats--are vital to some people to LIVE.

Edit: deleted embedded quote tag. Sorry, Sloan.

[Donn]

It's because it has been a particularly notorious problem - the damage to checked instruments, the vagaries of letting flight crews decide whether you can bring it on board, whether you can use the seat you paid for, etc., to the extent that a large number of people are worked up about it because they aren't sure they can travel with their instruments.

And it's because, on their own, the airlines have shown over the years that they don't give a rip, so the only way out is to force them to come up with something that works. And the only way to make that happen is to flog the political system the way a large union can. If there are other constituencies out there with similar problems ... maybe they tried to get on board with the AFM and were rebuffed, I don't know, but seems more likely that musicians were simply the only people really feeling the pain.

As a larger issue, if we want better treatment in general from the airlines, we will have to get used to the idea of paying for it. If some carrier can fill their planes at higher ticket prices by making your ride more comfortable and your luggage safer, then my guess is they will - they know very well how to do that. They don't do it because people buy tickets strictly on price.

(By the way, trolls always insist that they're sincere, so while it doesn't really prove it's a troll, it sure doesn't provide any reason to think it isn't.)

[sloan]

What other bulky, fragile items that are vital to some people's livelihood who travel nationally and internationally during the course of their work did you have in mind?

I'll do you one better: portable dialysis units--most of which are too large to fit in overhead bins or under seats--are vital to some people to LIVE.

Please fix the quotes. I did not write that.

[sloan]

It's because it has been a particularly notorious problem

Is the problem caused by the airline - or by musicians who insist on bringing freight into the cabin (and not being willing to pay for proper packaging (the way everyone else shipping bulky, fragile items does).

It's not HARD to package a musical instrument for shipping. It is *expensive* - but that's no reason to force the other passengers on board pay the price, just because you are unwilling to purchase a proper flight case.

In my opinion (as a moderately frequent flyer) the most common problem on flights today are caused by people who insist on bringing into the cabin stuff that just doesn't fit, or is otherwise unsafe to have in the cabin in an emergency. Their sense of *entitlement* - that little voice that says "I'm more important than you, so the rules don't apply to me", makes them drag on HUGE amounts of "stuff".

I, for one, would fly in an instant on any airline that actually ENFORCED those cute little "baggage sizing devices". If if doesn't fit, it doesn't go in the cabin. Period.

If your tuba is important to you - package it properly, and either check it, or (here's a thought!) ship it as freight. Don't wrap it in a thin layer of fabric or plastic and then complain that things get broken when your baggage is treated as *baggage*.

Strangely, it's the "middle-sized" musical instruments that cause all the trouble. Pianos, harps, drums, double basses - they all seem to manage just fine in the cargo hold - and they are no less fragile nor important to their owners than tubas are. Flutes, clarinets, even violins can "fit under the seat in front of you" and qualify as cabin baggage.

Why is it that the folk in the middle take the attitude that "you should BEND the rules because *I am special*"?

Guess what - you're not so special. Neither is the guy who drags on 2 roller boards and 3 garment bags. I know it's more convenient *for you* to bend the rules and give you special treatment - but what's in it for the rest of us?

But...back to the basic question: there are lots of people who travel with bulky, fragile items that are important to their livelihood. Why (other than a strong special-interest lobby) are "musical instruments" given special protection?

A bag 20"x10"x5" is a "carry-on bag". A footlocker, or a tuba, is not.

Part of me thinks that the *real* problem is that *some* airlines and flight attendants have been *too nice* and have bent the rules out of the goodness of their hearts - and then
musicians got all up and arms when it turned out that these special favors were not automatically provided every time - no matter what the circumstances. It would have been
a lot better if *everyone* had just said no from the start.

To be fair, musicians are not the only ones who do this. There are plenty of inconsiderate frequent fliers who have steadily increased the amount of crap they lug into the cabin - just because they've been allowed to in the past. On the rare instances when airline personnel point at the baggage sizing device and say "you'll have to check that, sir" - they
become offended and go ballistic.

In a lot of ways, it's a pleasure to fly in other countries, where baggage sizes are often strictly enforced at the ticket counter. it's a bit of a hassle waiting in line while people re-pack their "important" things and decide what they really need in the cabin - but once you get on board, life is much more civilized.

[Art Hovey]

The bill is certainly a big help for guitarists and cellists, but will it make life any easier for those of us with large tubas? I have not seen an airplane seat yet that would hold my helicon or my big Martin BBb.

[ginnboonmiller]

I am totally unaware of any source that tells me that musical instruments are the only items that receive exceptional language from the FAA. Sloan, where are you getting the information that musicians bullied their way past invalids to get protection from their instruments? I'd really like to know. Otherwise, I'm not one to mince words, your "honest question" is total bullshit.

[iiipopes]

I understand sloan is playing devil's advocate, but for one, I'm damn glad it's finally law, and he should be also.

I don't play woulda-shoulda-coulda games. If anybody else wants to be able to carry their items on board, let them find a congressman or senator to make it happen for them as well. That's how the American system works, how it's designed to work, and how it works better than anything else God has ever allowed a society to come up with for governance.

[sloan]

I am totally unaware of any source that tells me that musical instruments are the only items that receive exceptional language from the FAA. Sloan, where are you getting the information that musicians bullied their way past invalids to get protection from their instruments? I'd really like to know. Otherwise, I'm not one to mince words, your "honest question" is total bullshit.

Read the first post in this thread.

Now go off and read the law.

You *have* read the law, haven't you?

[sloan]

I understand sloan is playing devil's advocate, but for one, I'm damn glad it's finally law, and he should be also.

No, I'm not...and no, I'm not.

I would be happy to see a law that requires *all* baggage policies to be uniform and standard. I am opposed to laws like this that single out particular classes of customers - FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN STRONG LOBBYING BY THEIR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

I think it's a bad way to draft laws, and I think this particular law is an excellent example of why.

Much as I enjoy getting special treatment when I'm a member of the favored class - I can see past my nose to the obvious conclusion that there will come a time when I am NOT in the favored class, and I will be discriminated AGAINST instead of being discriminated FOR.

I don't believe that this particular law has any social value, other than shutting up the AFM lobbyists. I am frankly ashamed by the attitude I see from some fellow tubists - rejoicing that they now get special privileges denied to others, just because they are "musicians".

And, no...I do NOT think that the right thing to do is to have EVERY special interest group chip away at the problem, getting "special privileges" for each group, in turn.

Why does it matter WHAT is in the big, oversized case? WHY should a "musical instrument" be treated any differently than "an anvil sample" (gotta get in a Music Man reference, somehow)???

I mean...really...WHY do you think that "musical instruments" deserve this kind of privilege?

No - "it's good for me, me, me" is not a good reason.

[hup_d_dup]

For years I had to travel with a half dozen large cases of photography and lighting equipment, and the worst part of it was that the airlines never had a clear policy on how to check the equipment in or how much I had to pay for it. Sometimes the policy wasn't even the same on the return leg of a round trip. The article cited by the OP clearly mentioned, several times, that a major benefit of the new bill is that musicians now know what to expect when they travel with instruments. That in itself is a good thing.

Also, as another poster has mentioned, although we know that this benefits musicians, it may be that it benefits not only musicians, but all travelers with sensitive luggage. But even if it doesn't, it's a start in the right direction. Once this policy is in place, if it works out for musicians and the airlines, it will be much easier for other groups to lobby for the same treatment. This how incremental improvement often works.

Sloan, I understand that you consider this a question of fairness, but I have to wonder why you have targeted this topic when vastly greater issues of fairness are staring us all right in the face. When I travel first class on a busy day through Newark Airport I am quickly whisked past HUNDREDS of other passengers. I'm not talking about boarding the plane (that's faster too) but at the check by TSA, a government agency that is a servant to all citizens, not a commercial firm marketing a product with price points.

Hup

[tofu]

I agree with Dr. Sloan in regards to the preferential treatment aspect and his other comments as well.

I've also always wondered about the hazard of a strapped in tuba. How well are these things really strapped in? In a severe drop how well will the average gig bag straps hold up to the stress? If you look at the poor way most folks strap child cars seats in automobiles (and they're designed to be strapped in) - I can only imagine how well the average tuba player straps a tuba in. I sure don't want to get hit by somebody's BAT moving at high speed through the cabin during a 500 mph emergency dive.

[Lingon]

Simple solution. All of us that play large instruments finish touring globally. Let's just do these small in our neighbourhood gigs, and the trouble is solved.
I have seen it too many times when persons with so called flight approved cases that weight a lot and seems to be a good solution for flying, open their cases just to find that the instruments are damaged or maybe the whole very very costly case partially crushed. Flight cases are no guarantee that you will have an undamaged instrument when you arrive at your destination. It is surely better protection than a standard case or a gigbag but no guarantee whatsoever.

If instead the people that loads and unloads the planes would be trained to handle the luggage with care, especially when the stuff is marked Fragile then the situation would be a bit different. However, that is also something I have been aware of, if something is marked Fragile then the risk seems to be higher that the item is handled badly.

All this seems also to be handled different in different countries and different carriers. When flying to Japan I have very seldom seen bad handled luggage, but when travelling in some European countries and the US, well... Different cultures, people and working routines.

So, while the possibility to bring the instruments in the cabin seems to be a good solution for someone, I believe that it is just as to give painkillers instead of cure the disease.

Just my 2, we don't have cents here but, öre...

[gwwilk]

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Yes, don't you?

I agree that expensive flight cases are the politically acceptable answer to the problem even if they don't guarantee the instrument's safety. If flight cases were the only options for tuba travel aboard airplanes, the occasional flyer, once every few years or so, with a tuba would probably leave the instrument at home rather than pay out the money for a flight case that would just gather dust in storage. The possibility of a tuba flight case rental business comes to mind, but I think that such an enterprise would quickly go broke due to near-zero demand. Personal disclosure: I've never flown with a tuba and plan never to if I can possibly do otherwise...like Bloke said. But musicians at least now know what to expect, right or wrong.

[Oyba]

The last time I flew, my hold baggage did not arrive with me. Luckily I was on my way home but if I had been on an outward flight then it would have been difficult. Someone who has a professional engagement, such as a concert, needs to be 100% certain that the equipment they need will disembark with them rather than arriving hours or days later. This is one reason why musicians (and other people travelling with professional equipment that is difficult to replace at short notice) should, wherever possible, be allowed to take their equipment into the cabin.

[iiipopes]

OK, altruism is good, but with discussion like this thread, another congressman or senator is just as likely to insert a repeal of the provision into the next bill. Why is everybody biting the hand that fed them? Say thank you and be done with it.

[Donn]

If your job requires air travel, common sense should tell you to get this:

My guess is, numerically, most of the people who benefit from this are not in that category - they are not traveling with an instrument because it's their job. (And no, likely not union members.) I wouldn't know for a fact, but I'm guessing that national touring acts have worked this out.

This is what I got for my bari, for its first plane trip


... notice the valence twisted out in the front, one latch sheared off and another broken? These SKB cases turn out to not be indestructible, but the bari survived - I mean, it didn't arrive in playable condition, but it took less than $1K to straighten it back out. Yeah, not a flight case.

(Bloke, if you want to run the numbers, that would be round trip Seattle-Boston, traveling alone in a vintage Volvo that gets around 20mpg. DP - 0 seconds company time on this one.)