Hacker News Reader

Comment by mseebach | Hacker News Reader

And as with all other special exceptions written into the law by lobbyists, the tab is generously picked up by the rest of us. You're welcome.

View on HN

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 think of lobbyists I think of someone having something financial to gain. I'm not aware of a huge flying-musician lobby.

2. What tab? What penalty are we the unfortunate paying because of this?

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.

Thank you on #1. Missed that in my first read, I see it now.

2: There is currently no allowed cabin baggage equivalent to a guitar.

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.

"privileged group", otherwise known as "someone who actually needs it more than you do".

Yeah, I never carry anything valuable or fragile on planes. Thanks for clearing that up.

How about valuable, fragile, that you have a close emotional attachment to, that is also required for your profession.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-f... for an example of what used to happen before this law.

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.

A typical cello weights about 8 pounds. A hard case (not a 'flight case' that would be suitable for the cargo hold, but a hard carrying case) weighs no more than 15 lbs or so, and good ones weigh under 8 lbs. An electric cello might even fit in the overhead compartment, depending exactly how it's built! (Though you will likely have to check your amplifiers.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

Sounds like the moron that packed the double bass didn't put a security approved lock on it.

That's a pretty strong assumption. I've travelled with instruments, and complied with the rules of the airlines involved as well as the government agencies involved, and still managed to get shit badly broken. I don't know of the specific case in question, but I would wager that the "moron" who packed the double bass was not, in fact, a moron.

I wasn't told. It does sound like the hole in the case (and the bass) is evidence for the absence of a security lock. On the other hand, the guy was probably a professional musician, and therefore should have known… Who knows, maybe he doesn't travel much, and made a mistake?

This is not a valid response to the comment you are replying to. It's just an appeal to emotion. It doesn't negate the fact that this is the result of a special interests group nor does it negate the fact that the cost is not provided by the musicians that now take up more cabin space.

...a special interests group which got involved due to the airlines frequently destroying precious musical instruments through negligence.

If one is looking for the root cause of this cost, the arrow points directly at the incompetence of the airlines.

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.

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.

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).

>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.

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.

There is no subsidy. It says right in the law that they can be charged the comensurate rate for baggage. Or the cost of an extra ticket in the case of a cello.

The only thing it enforces is that they can't be gouged to pay extra merely for bringing a musical instrument aboard.

Damn you, Big Musical-Instrument-Owners!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com