4 ms·

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 thin

• DougBTX 13y ago
  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.
  • jat850 13y ago
    Thank you on #1. Missed that in my first read, I see it now.
  • mseebach 13y ago
    2: There is currently no allowed cabin baggage equivalent to a guitar.
• mseebach 13y ago
  1: The musicians lobby. It's in the article. 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.
  • fastball 13y ago
    "privileged group", otherwise known as "someone who actually needs it more than you do".
    • mseebach 13y ago
      Yeah, I never carry anything valuable or fragile on planes. Thanks for clearing that up.
      • bashinator 13y ago
        How about valuable, fragile, that you have a close emotional attachment to, that is also required for your profession.
  • jat850 13y ago
    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.
    • gaius 13y ago
      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.
      • michaelhoffman 13y ago
        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.
      • jat850 13y ago
        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.
      • pmiller2 13y ago
        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-flyer-miles-for-musicians-mr-cello/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/18/delta-no-more-frequent-f... for an example of what used to happen before this law.
      • InclinedPlane 13y ago
        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.
• michaelhoffman 13y ago
  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.
  • nikatwork 13y ago
    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.
    • ams6110 13y ago
      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.
      • gnaffle 13y ago
        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.
        • loup-vaillant 13y ago
          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…
• avalaunch 13y ago
  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.
  • jotm 13y ago
    It is unfair, because an engineer can't do the same with his expensive desktop computer that he needs for work on the other side of the continent.
    • gnaffle 13y ago
      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).
      • ars_technician 13y ago
        >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.
        • bashinator 13y ago
          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.