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

[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.)

[octavelower]

All I'm gonna say is this...
Bought mega awesome flight case...($1,700.00 - WJ)
flew one time with it...
got to destination...
opened up the case to check instrument...
bell had a couple if 10 inch wrinkles...
brace between bell and body ripped in half, making the bell basically free from the rest of the tuba...
fought with airlines for 45 minutes for them to take responsibility only to be told that I must have put the tuba in the case already damaged...
spent a other $600.00 dollars to repair.

Now I have a tuba that still plays great but has been permanently scarred.

Moral of the story is now matter what we do, we cannot make the airlines care about our possessions. So, rather then being out about $2,300.00 I would have rather purchased a seat for the tuba and saved a lot of cash.

[PaulTkachenko]

When my instrument is within the standard checked baggage size limits and I don't ask for any preferential treatment and they STILL charge me extra. That really is unfair.

That's what happens over here.

[Rick Denney]

Some issues:

1.) The airlines are not held responsible for their mishandling of baggage, and thus require the traveler to assume all risk for their mishandling. There is therefore no incentive for the airlines to correct their mishandling practices. I flew 75,000 miles last year, all domestic (don't try to brag, Dr. Sloan, it's easy to rack 'em up with intercontinental flights). I have sat on airplanes and watched the baggage handlers loading and unloading baggage. I routinely see them swipe luggage of all types right off the side of the conveyor belt that was moving a bit too fast for them, sending the object of their swipe to the concrete three or four feet below.

2.) Tubas and other musical instruments, unlike golf clubs and skis, are hollow. Many are large, but have to be light enough to hold. Being large, hollow, and light means that they often cannot tolerate forces over a certain acceleration (or jerk) without damaging themselves. Thus, padding has to keep shock loads down below that acceleration or jerk to avoid such damage. Such shock load requires the elimination of stress points and a considerable excursion distance inside the case. That requires a large case. Sorry, but Walt Johnson and similar cases do not prevent such damage, and those who fly frequently with their tubas have suffered that sort of damage, and because the case remained undamaged, the airline didn't even pretend to care before they rejected the claim (as they would have done even if they pretended to care at first).

3.) The problem is not that the airlines aren't forced to allow people to buy a seat, it's that the airlines may allow someone to put the tuba in the hold, or not, or for an undetermined but large extra fee, without the ability to determine which it will be until attempting to obtain the boarding pass. We have documented cases of people being unable to board because the airline refused the case altogether, or being charged a surprise fee of something like $275, or being allowed to check the case without comment. Many here advocate using curbside check-in with a sizable tip, which seems to me as corrupt as what Dr. Sloan is complaining about. Some have checked their tuba with no issue in the first leg of a flight only to be rejected if they changed planes or airlines mid-itinerary, if it required rechecking bags, or for their return flight. As I understand this law, it requires a consistent policy so that people will know what to expect. It does not demand airlines to provide a service for free.

4.) Golfers routinely check oversized bags with only normal additional fees, even though flight cases for golf clubs are quite large. I somehow suspect the percentage of working musicians traveling with instruments (with the possible exception of guitars) versus hobbyists is higher than the percentage of PGA touring pros versus weekend golfers. The Denver airport has special racks in the baggage-handling system for skis. At least skis don't take up much volume.

5.) Cyclists have had the same issues as musicians. The horror stories of people traveling to events such as the Ironman Triathlon sound pretty similar to what we hear on this forum.

6.) It takes more than 20 hours to drive from Memphis to New York if there is the slightest issue on I-81, and often the issues on that overcrowded highway are not slight. And I-95 is worse, though at least it is more easily avoided. Sure, you can avoid I-81, but not if you want to get there in 20 hours. I've driven I-81 from Bristol to Winchester where a series of issues added four hours to the normal time for that section of highway, and where alternate routes were severely congested by diversion traffic.

7.) I don't like favoring special-interest groups any more than the next guy, but there are technical features of musical instruments that distinguish them from most other luggage.

8.) Airlines would rather be able to reject these oversized bags when they have better-paying cargo to haul, on an ad hoc basis. They would prefer to write their contract of carriage so that they have the right to force their customers to assume all risks of travel. But cheap and available travel underpins what economic strength we have, and to believe that such can avoid any political involvement or regulation borders on naive. We build highways as a nation to provide cheap and available travel, and we tax the public to do it as an expression of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. We impose a range of regulation on the airlines, and the natural outcome of all regulation is that it favors some and not others, no matter how attentive its drafters try to be to fairness. But the mechanism for policing that fairness is public action, and the mechanism for that is through groups of the public representing their needs directly to legislators. A majority of the nation, if asked, wouldn't care about musicians or other travelers who are required to travel with oversized bags. But our system is not supposed to be a tyranny of the majority.

Rick "who thinks WJ cases nail down the wrong parts of the instrument" Denney

[hup_d_dup]

3.) ... Some have checked their tuba with no issue in the first leg of a flight only to be rejected if they changed planes or airlines mid-itinerary, if it required rechecking bags, or for their return flight. As I understand this law, it requires a consistent policy so that people will know what to expect. It does not demand airlines to provide a service for free.

YES!, this is exactly what I wrote about in a previous post. As a commercial photographer with a number of large cases I had the policy change on a return flight! How can I possibly get a policy or lack of policy like this changed except through the regulation of my government representatives? There just aren't enough people like me with this problem. And I don't even know who they are. Some are photographers, some are cyclists, and some are tuba players. And I don't think we are asking for special treatment (at least I'm not), just consistent treatment.

Hup

[PMeuph]

AM I MISSING SOMETHING???

What is wrong with somebody buying an extra seat for their tuba and bringing it on board. I mean, if they pay the price of the extras seat and have a tuba that doesn't inconvenience the person beside them, on what grounds is their an issue? (Assuming that the seat belt secures the tuba in place, of course.)

[Rick Denney]

AM I MISSING SOMETHING???

What is wrong with somebody buying an extra seat for their tuba and bringing it on board. I mean, if they pay the price of the extras seat and have a tuba that doesn't inconvenience the person beside them, on what grounds is their an issue? (Assuming that the seat belt secures the tuba in place, of course.)

What you are missing is that some airlines will refuse the option, even after the ticket is bought with that expressed purpose. The tuba might seem large, and it will always seem threatening. When I was in city work, I had an emergency light on my personal vehicle which I used for work. While at a work site, with the car behind a barricade with the light flashing, a passerby noticed a tuba in a black gig bag in my back seat and asked me if it was a body bag.

I can't imagine walking onto an airplane with my Holton in a gig bag and not getting a wall of protest from everyone on the plane. 'Cellos are a lot easier to identify as such.

Rick "who does not travel by air with large-format photography equipment any more" Denney

[sloan]

2.) Tubas and other musical instruments, unlike golf clubs and skis, are hollow. Many are large, but have to be light enough to hold. Being large, hollow, and light means that they often cannot tolerate forces over a certain acceleration (or jerk) without damaging themselves. Thus, padding has to keep shock loads down below that acceleration or jerk to avoid such damage. Such shock load requires the elimination of stress points and a considerable excursion distance inside the case. That requires a large case. Sorry, but Walt Johnson and similar cases do not prevent such damage, and those who fly frequently with their tubas have suffered that sort of damage, and because the case remained undamaged, the airline didn't even pretend to care before they rejected the claim (as they would have done even if they pretended to care at first).

Is that the fault of: a) the airline, b) Walt Johnson, or c) the owner?

Rick "who thinks WJ cases nail down the wrong parts of the instrument" Denney

Bingo.

Here's my take on airline policy:

a) most "damage" to the exterior of a bag or case is "normal wear and tear". If the contents are OK, but the bag has (minor) damage, then the bag has done it's job
b) if the bag is undamaged, but the contents are trashed, then you did a bad job of packing
c) if the bag is damaged AND the contents are damaged, THEN we'll talk

I have personal experience with a) and c) - and none of b) - perhaps because I pack things competently. In case a) I didn't even bother talking to the airline, because it was
obvious that the fault was with the case manufacturer (and me - for using that case). In case c) I got full and generous compensation, without any hassle.

I keep returning to this point: if you are an air PASSENGER then your contract with the airline is to deliver YOU to the destination safely. Baggage services are purely optional and
"are what they are". Note that with the advent of extra charges for bags, this point may now be arguable.

If you have something fragile and valuable that you need to move from point A to point B - you have a FREIGHT problem. Deal with someone who handles FREIGHT. Pay the $2.
Put your tuba in a crate, on a skid, and ship to/from commercial locations with loading docks. It's not that hard. It is true that most freight operations will not accept a shipment on zero notice and deliver it cross country in 4 hours.

On the point of standardized rules and regulations, I wholeheartedly agree that they should be standard and well advertised. I still see no reason why MUSICIANS should have the benefit of standardized rules - but other types of passengers should not. Why not pass a law that says that EVERY PASSENGER should expect standard rules, in writing, provided in advance.

We're back at my question: what is it about being a MUSICIAN that warrants special treatment by the law?

BTW - I just received (by UPS) a salt shaker and pepper grinder. It was shipped in a standard Amazon cardboard carton. The carton was nearly twice the size of the cardboard box. The rest of the carton was filled with air pillows. Inside the standard retail box, the salt shaker and pepper mill were embedded in a plastic support, perfectly fit to the items, which stabilized them and fit the cardboard box so that nothing moved. The items were in contact with the plastic holder over more than 50% of their surface area.

It arrived in perfect condition. Shipped overnight and delivered to my door for $3.99. I estimate that you could drop this package from an arbitrary height (achieving terminal velocity) onto concrete, with considerable damage to the carton, minimal damage to the retail box, and zero damage to the items inside.

When you travel - is your tuba protected as well as my salt shaker and pepper mill? Why not?

For my money, the perfect tuba travel case would be a modified version of the standard Yamaha plastic case - modified to eliminate the "wings" surrounding the bell. ALL of the
large tubing fits perfectly in a tuba-specific molded Styrofoam(TM) ball, with "nothing but air" surrounding the bell and valves. I reverse the springs so that they hold the valve stems DOWN, and (if I think of it) stuff a beach ball in the bell. The only flaw in this case is the attempt to make it "sleek" by closely following the contour of the tuba from bell to bow - I would fatten it up and make it a "wedge". My case has picked up a few cracks (in the problem "wing" area) - but (so far) my tuba is unscathed. Styrofoam is lovely stuff - but, it has to be molded to your specific tuba - no "one size fits all".

My King 2341 travels in the case it came in. Not a lot of flights - but zero damage. I'm not thrilled with the way it works - but I'm willing to take the risk. If my tuba is trashed on it's next flight, and I get zero from the airline, I'm still ahead compared to purchasing a seat on every flight.

My Conn will travel (if it ever travels) in it's TWO cases, which were overengineered in the 1950s (I'm guessing the original equipment 1934 cases disintegrated somewhere along the line) and require a team of native bearers. Actually, looking at those cases - as heavy as they are, I'm not entirely sure they are fit for air travel. They seem perfect for "under the bus" travel (they stack nicely - but I wouldn't like to drop them from 10 ft onto tarmac - ellipsoids are stronger than rectangular boxes.

One last point - note that most airlines specifically disclaim any responsibility for anything that "protrudes" from the case. Handles, wheels, locks ... all are considered "expendable".

My helicon....now there is a story...but you've heard that one before. I have a working prototype, but probably won't build a "production model".

[hup_d_dup]

On the point of standardized rules and regulations, I wholeheartedly agree that they should be standard and well advertised. I still see no reason why MUSICIANS should have the benefit of standardized rules - but other types of passengers should not. Why not pass a law that says that EVERY PASSENGER should expect standard rules, in writing, provided in advance.

We're back at my question: what is it about being a MUSICIAN that warrants special treatment by the law?

I have no direct knowledge of the law, but in a previous post you implied that you had read it, so I'm assuming that you are speaking from authority when you complain that the law is written to benefit only musicians and not others with large luggage.

Therefore, as a photographer with large cases full of lighting equipment and no solution at this time, there are a couple of ways I can react to this law;

1. It's unfair, why should someone else get what I don't!

Or;
2. This is great. Having a law like this in place is a first step; it will now be easier to get uniform standards in place for anyone else who needs them.

I guess it depends on if you want a perfect solution from minute 1, or if you believe in incremental change.

Hup

[Rick Denney]

Ken, as long as I keep seeing the airline baggage handlers throwing luggage and dumping packages to the concrete feet below, I will have no sympathy for the airlines. When I see them exercising due care, then I will think it my responsibility to meet them halfway. There may be no conceivable or otherwise feasible case for a tuba that will prevent damage in that scenario.

Given that people travel by air for the purpose of traveling, they will nearly always have some sort of bag. Saying that the airline is responsible for the person and not the bag is not supportable. Bags are not optional for nearly all travelers, and a fair contract of carriage would take that into account. The market lacks sufficient elasticity to naturally find the correct solution--most airports and routes are dominated by one carrier and thus are not subject to competition to keep them customer-oriented. The solution with inelastic markets is to either live with lack of regard for customer service, or provide some regulation. When customers are powerless to exert market influence, they exert influence of another type. You should not be surprised by this. But it's a moot point--all airlines charge for checked bags these days except for premium and first-class passengers, so they have a proprietary responsibility, not just an implied responsibility.

Reasonable care on the part of the airlines would not require them to disclaim damage to the industrial-quality casters and other strong case components that they routinely damage. They might even offer extra insurance, for a price, which they do not offer. Thus, they provide no mechanism to mitigate the risk.

By the way, I once had a suit ruined because they put my soft-sided (but waterproof) case down on the apron in a puddle of jet fuel, which dissolved the waterproofing and soaked through into the clothes. They said it was my fault for (apparently) not having a jet-fuel-proof case, and I received no compensation. But is it reasonable for me to expect an airline to avoid placing my luggage, however its made, in a puddle of jet fuel? I think so.

And shipping by freight is not a solution for a specialized tool of the trade that its owner might be expected to use every day. That sort of shipping requires a shipping infrastructure far beyond the capabilities of professional musicians. And the cost is higher to get the box to and from the airport (which requires a commercial truck with the appropriate licensing to even pull up to that loading dock) than to put it on the airplane. That doesn't include the cost of the box and strapping it to a pallet. None of the retail shipping solutions will accommodate a sufficiently large package. I've done it all ways--I've shipped Greyhound and nearly panicked when it took an extra couple of weeks, I've (several times) chased a semi-truck all over Loudoun County because they could not drive a 60-foot-long vehicle down my driveway to deliver a 4-foot-long box. I've driven 50 miles in three different directions (to the Amtrak station in DC, to one freight terminal in Hagerstown, and to a different freight terminal in Winchester) to a depot where I could pick up a package, after having spent days on the phone making sure it would be there, and several times having them try to load it on a truck for delivery (see above) despite explicit written instructions not to. These are not practical solutions for routine travel.

Your King is about half the size of my Holton, but my Holton is about the size that most orchestra pros feel it necessary to use these days. A case that provides sufficient internal range of motion (with respect to Bloke, whose must have carved away the padding in that WJ case that tries to hold the tuba by the bell rim) to avoid impact damage for a 6/4 tuba will be very large.

I feel about this the same as the dry cleaners who disclaim responsibility for buttons, or for car wash operators who disclaim responsibility for factory-attached trim. It is not possible for their customers, exercising any reasonable amount of care, to avoid that risk, yet every customer will have shirts with buttons and cars with trim. In court, those disclaimers don't provide any protection to those proprietors at all when they are challenged.

It seems to me the airlines have had their way with Congress quite effectively, usually well out of public view, and you complain when groups of passengers find ways to band together to counter that influence, using transparent, bona fide political processes? What was to keep Congress, upon noting the problem brought to them by musicians, from generalizing the legislation to all airline customers with similar needs? Just because Congress is unwilling to do that, musicians are expected to remain unaccommodated? It is not the job of musicians to write laws, but it is appropriate for them to express their needs, especially considering the airlines provide no avenue for them to do so.

Rick "whose Yamaha, in its factory case, has survived baggage handling, but who credits that outcome as lucky" Denney