Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Musician: "I'd like to buy an extra ticket for my $10,000 vintage Gibson guitar." Delta: "No; but at no additional cost to you we'll smash it in an elevator"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 356
    More: Fail, baggage handlers  
•       •       •

29838 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2013 at 2:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



356 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 04:11:21 AM  
You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?

Are we saying that letting a bunch of baggage handlers (and the interim mechanical systems) damage our property is a legitimately expected course of action?

Regardless of how we put these items up for travel, isn't the default expectation the one where those personnel charged with handling them are presumed to be accountable for the intact delivery of said items?

Of all of the rhetoric about how this guy should have handled this, why aren't we talking about why it seems to be okay that the normal handling process damages what is being shipped?

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the airline to damage luggage (under any circumstance), and that the onus is always on the traveler to prevent it?
I'm of the opinion that when we pay a provider to ship our items (whether checked or not), it's on them to be held accountable for the delivery of those items.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me that some among the posters here are trying to defend the idea that it's okay for the airline to mishandle our luggage.
 
2013-01-07 04:14:00 AM  

Serious Black: My "cheap" guitar, the Crushinator, is a Squier Strat whose fretboard is so terrible that the strings are automatically out of tune once you pass the fifth fret. I'm pretty sure that would be audible in a large venue.


You could probably get a new neck and bolt it on for around $100. If the Crushinator is even worth the effort, that is.
 
2013-01-07 04:14:36 AM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: TommyymmoT: The case in question:
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
I mispoke. Those cases don't go for $600.
This one, is being offered at $1500.

It's not a "cheap" case, it's just the WRONG case for the situation.

Then, I would like to amend my statement: He should have had a proper traveling case. He shouldn't have been cheap and should have purchased a seat for his guitar for all flights.


Ok, too much beer, but I'm going to semi 'out' myself.
In the early 80s, I was working with some very guitar heavy bands.
I was a guitar tech for Roy Buchanan, Johnny Winter, and others.
MULTIPLE guitars, that are today, worth more than most new cars.

Question:
How many seats should I have bought?
How fired would I have been?
 
2013-01-07 04:14:45 AM  

Serious Black: Pray 4 Mojo: Serious Black: My Maribel is worth about $2,500, and I don't have nearly enough money to fly first class everywhere I go.

Is Maribel a guitar? You leave the "expensive" gear at home.

A $199 Epiphone sounds remarkably similar to a '59 Les Paul in a large venue.

My "cheap" guitar, the Crushinator, is a Squier Strat whose fretboard is so terrible that the strings are automatically out of tune once you pass the fifth fret. I'm pretty sure that would be audible in a large venue.


Yeah... probably. Point taken.

Get a cheaper one then... a decent $1000 American Strat. Back when I was a pup and my band traveled a lot... we all had two (or three) full sets of gear. The "nice enough", road worn gear is what traveled... as it was easily replacable.
 
2013-01-07 04:17:33 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Seriously... it's important to point out that ATA approved cases are not only designed for a certain amount of impact resistance... they are shaped to prevent hang ups and problems in the transport equipment to avoid this kind of thing.


I don't fly with any of my guitars anymore. Used to be able to carry them on and stow them in a closet but no more. If the instruments have to travel they are getting crated and freighted.
 
2013-01-07 04:17:51 AM  

Naked Singularity: You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?


No... we just accept it as a reality. The other option is to ship your luggage, take only a carry on... or not fly.

And judging by the state of the industry... the third seems a popular option.
 
2013-01-07 04:18:45 AM  

Naked Singularity: You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?

Are we saying that letting a bunch of baggage handlers (and the interim mechanical systems) damage our property is a legitimately expected course of action?

Regardless of how we put these items up for travel, isn't the default expectation the one where those personnel charged with handling them are presumed to be accountable for the intact delivery of said items?

Of all of the rhetoric about how this guy should have handled this, why aren't we talking about why it seems to be okay that the normal handling process damages what is being shipped?

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the airline to damage luggage (under any circumstance), and that the onus is always on the traveler to prevent it?
I'm of the opinion that when we pay a provider to ship our items (whether checked or not), it's on them to be held accountable for the delivery of those items.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me that some among the posters here are trying to defend the idea that it's okay for the airline to mishandle our luggage.


In my under-educated opinion, it's not so much that as it is establishing legitimate blame. It's not that it's always on the traveler, so much as the process has a certain amount of assumed risk, and after the damage is done, there are several dozen people that had hands-on activity in the process that are blameless for the one who is actually at fault. So it's hard to determine in a blind blame game on one side or the other who to punish. Unfortunately this does give an imbalance of power to those with the most money and toys, but when has it not? It's the best method we have so far to decide fault, and that it's so imperfect is why "innocent until proven guilty" has become a standard of law.

So it's not okay that luggage is regularly and in some times in large, valuable objects, mishandled. It's just what happens in an imperfect world. Trying to decide empirical fault, be it with the traveler or the company, that's where the shades of grey start. Unfortunately, rarely is there ever a clear and valid solution of "this person/entity destroyed my valuable thing" to determine fault. It's why we still have juries, and why car crashes make such profit for attorneys. It just is.
 
2013-01-07 04:18:48 AM  
i get the feeling that blaming the victim is always de rigeur. one person also has a chip on their shoulder about overhead baggage and as such takes pleasure in hearing about the punishment of this complete strangers property.

this guy should write a song about it like the other guy did. if an airline shows disinterest in respecting their customers property, then it should be shouted from the rooftops that they have shiatty business practices.

i dont care about hearing about the type of cases. a real business would bend over backwards to make sure their customers property is well taken care of. i fly only when no other option exists for that reason, although Southwest is actually decent.
 
2013-01-07 04:21:43 AM  

momentous: i get the feeling that blaming the victim is always de rigeur. one person also has a chip on their shoulder about overhead baggage and as such takes pleasure in hearing about the punishment of this complete strangers property.

this guy should write a song about it like the other guy did. if an airline shows disinterest in respecting their customers property, then it should be shouted from the rooftops that they have shiatty business practices.

i dont care about hearing about the type of cases. a real business would bend over backwards to make sure their customers property is well taken care of. i fly only when no other option exists for that reason, although Southwest is actually decent.


I was with you right up until the end of your post. Southwest is the Wal-Mart of airlines and should be avoided.
 
2013-01-07 04:23:15 AM  

Naked Singularity: You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?

Are we saying that letting a bunch of baggage handlers (and the interim mechanical systems) damage our property is a legitimately expected course of action?

Regardless of how we put these items up for travel, isn't the default expectation the one where those personnel charged with handling them are presumed to be accountable for the intact delivery of said items?

Of all of the rhetoric about how this guy should have handled this, why aren't we talking about why it seems to be okay that the normal handling process damages what is being shipped?

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the airline to damage luggage (under any circumstance), and that the onus is always on the traveler to prevent it?
I'm of the opinion that when we pay a provider to ship our items (whether checked or not), it's on them to be held accountable for the delivery of those items.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me that some among the posters here are trying to defend the idea that it's okay for the airline to mishandle our luggage.


There's the way things are and the way they ought to be. Let's just say that after 4 decades of flying I know what to expect. Millions of bags transported a year, thrown onto and off of carts, into and out of plane bellies, and finally through automated luggage systems. Your luggage will come out dirty, somewhat beaten up (if you're lucky) or damaged (if you're not).

If you want your luggage to get taken better care of ship it via Fed Ex and make sure it's insured. Or, leave it at home.
 
2013-01-07 04:25:29 AM  

red5ish: Serious Black: My "cheap" guitar, the Crushinator, is a Squier Strat whose fretboard is so terrible that the strings are automatically out of tune once you pass the fifth fret. I'm pretty sure that would be audible in a large venue.

You could probably get a new neck and bolt it on for around $100. If the Crushinator is even worth the effort, that is.


I doubt it. He's entirely stock. The neck is the biggest issue, but he has other problems. I mainly keep him because he was my first guitar.

Pray 4 Mojo: Get a cheaper one then... a decent $1000 American Strat. Back when I was a pup and my band traveled a lot... we all had two (or three) full sets of gear. The "nice enough", road worn gear is what traveled... as it was easily replacable.


If music were my day job, I would strongly consider that.
 
2013-01-07 04:26:12 AM  

OptimusHime: Naked Singularity: You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?

Are we saying that letting a bunch of baggage handlers (and the interim mechanical systems) damage our property is a legitimately expected course of action?

Regardless of how we put these items up for travel, isn't the default expectation the one where those personnel charged with handling them are presumed to be accountable for the intact delivery of said items?

Of all of the rhetoric about how this guy should have handled this, why aren't we talking about why it seems to be okay that the normal handling process damages what is being shipped?

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the airline to damage luggage (under any circumstance), and that the onus is always on the traveler to prevent it?
I'm of the opinion that when we pay a provider to ship our items (whether checked or not), it's on them to be held accountable for the delivery of those items.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me that some among the posters here are trying to defend the idea that it's okay for the airline to mishandle our luggage.

In my under-educated opinion, it's not so much that as it is establishing legitimate blame. It's not that it's always on the traveler, so much as the process has a certain amount of assumed risk, and after the damage is done, there are several dozen people that had hands-on activity in the process that are blameless for the one who is actually at fault. So it's hard to determine in a blind blame game on one side or the other who to punish. Unfortunately this does give an imbalance of power to those with the most money and toys, but when has it not? It's the best method we have so far to decide fault, and that it's so imperfect is why "innocent until proven guilty" has b ...


There's always *some* risk, but my point is why are we accepting that as the default, rather than the exception?

There's a legitimate case that can be made for the occasional accident, but why do we accept the case where the damage is common, rather than infrequent?

From my view, the onus is upon the business. They're the one's who are trying to convince us to give them our business. Implicit in that is the idea that they won't 'lose our luggage', etc.

An occasional accident is to be expected (and even then, I expect the carrier to step up to ameliorate the issue). Trying to convince us that bad handling is an occupational hazard is something I'm not willing to concede.
 
2013-01-07 04:28:05 AM  
Some of you guys are spending way too much time bickering in this thread. Just make your amusing or interesting post, and move on to the next story. I really think there should be a 1 or 2 post limit per thread.
 
2013-01-07 04:28:07 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Serious Black: Pray 4 Mojo: Serious Black: My Maribel is worth about $2,500, and I don't have nearly enough money to fly first class everywhere I go.

Is Maribel a guitar? You leave the "expensive" gear at home.

A $199 Epiphone sounds remarkably similar to a '59 Les Paul in a large venue.

My "cheap" guitar, the Crushinator, is a Squier Strat whose fretboard is so terrible that the strings are automatically out of tune once you pass the fifth fret. I'm pretty sure that would be audible in a large venue.

Yeah... probably. Point taken.

Get a cheaper one then... a decent $1000 American Strat. Back when I was a pup and my band traveled a lot... we all had two (or three) full sets of gear. The "nice enough", road worn gear is what traveled... as it was easily replacable.


That's what I said early in the thread.
Stuff gets stolen. ALOT. Hell, entire TRUCKS get stolen.
Entire venues burn to the ground on occasion.

95% of the audience won't notice if you're playing a Gibson, or an Epiphone, which by the way are pretty good.

If you play well enough, they wont care if it says "Firewood", on the headstock.
 
2013-01-07 04:33:11 AM  

justoneznot: Some of you guys are spending way too much time bickering in this thread. Just make your amusing or interesting post, and move on to the next story. I really think there should be a 1 or 2 post limit per thread.


Hush. ADULTS ARE TALKING.
If you're not too busy, look up the word "discourse".
 
2013-01-07 04:33:29 AM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: Naked Singularity: You know, I'm not going to comment about whether or not this guy should have invested in an indestructable case or not, but I'm going to have to ask:

What's with the idea that we should *expect* that our luggage should risk being destroyed in transit?

Are we saying that letting a bunch of baggage handlers (and the interim mechanical systems) damage our property is a legitimately expected course of action?

Regardless of how we put these items up for travel, isn't the default expectation the one where those personnel charged with handling them are presumed to be accountable for the intact delivery of said items?

Of all of the rhetoric about how this guy should have handled this, why aren't we talking about why it seems to be okay that the normal handling process damages what is being shipped?

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the airline to damage luggage (under any circumstance), and that the onus is always on the traveler to prevent it?
I'm of the opinion that when we pay a provider to ship our items (whether checked or not), it's on them to be held accountable for the delivery of those items.

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me that some among the posters here are trying to defend the idea that it's okay for the airline to mishandle our luggage.

There's the way things are and the way they ought to be. Let's just say that after 4 decades of flying I know what to expect. Millions of bags transported a year, thrown onto and off of carts, into and out of plane bellies, and finally through automated luggage systems. Your luggage will come out dirty, somewhat beaten up (if you're lucky) or damaged (if you're not).

If you want your luggage to get taken better care of ship it via Fed Ex and make sure it's insured. Or, leave it at home.


So, you're arguing that buying a plane ticket and checking your luggage doesn't constitute a legitimate expectation of proper handling of that luggage?

I don't expect perfection, but what's with your idea that Fed Ex is somehow better at handling luggage than an airline (maybe they are, but that's irrelevant) ? I'm paying the airline to do what they say they'll do, which is to transport me and my luggage from one place to another. Why should I not expect them to deliver on that implicit contract?

And why should I not hold them accountable when they fail to deliver on that implicit contract?

If my luggage is damaged, in transit, due to an action of theirs, do they not bear the responsibility for it?
 
2013-01-07 04:36:00 AM  

TommyymmoT: Runs_With_Scissors_: TommyymmoT: The case in question:
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
I mispoke. Those cases don't go for $600.
This one, is being offered at $1500.

It's not a "cheap" case, it's just the WRONG case for the situation.

Then, I would like to amend my statement: He should have had a proper traveling case. He shouldn't have been cheap and should have purchased a seat for his guitar for all flights.

Ok, too much beer, but I'm going to semi 'out' myself.
In the early 80s, I was working with some very guitar heavy bands.
I was a guitar tech for Roy Buchanan, Johnny Winter, and others.
MULTIPLE guitars, that are today, worth more than most new cars.

Question:
How many seats should I have bought?
How fired would I have been
?



I'm guessing the guitars went on the truck or in the bus. Otherwise, wouldn't it be up to the owner to pay for the cost of transport?

How fired would you have been?  Um... 42?

/csb on who you worked with - really
 
2013-01-07 04:36:32 AM  

TommyymmoT: Stuff gets stolen. ALOT. Hell, entire TRUCKS get stolen.


Some friends of mine were on tour and they'd parked their equipment truck with the back gate up against a wall to keep thieves from getting into the equipment. The thieves cut open the side of the truck.
 
2013-01-07 04:37:43 AM  

TommyymmoT: Entire venues burn to the ground on occasion.


Are you... once bitten twice shy?
 
2013-01-07 04:38:04 AM  
Naked Singularity:
So, you're arguing that buying a plane ticket and checking your luggage doesn't constitute a legitimate expectation of proper handling of that luggage?

Yes, but if you choose to transport you Stradivarius in a cardboard shoebox, don't come crying to me.
Insure it and enjoy it. Otherwise, leave it at home.
 
2013-01-07 04:45:47 AM  
I've never flown anywhere, but I've always heard if you have anything of value, you are better off FedEx/UPS-ing it to yourself than checking it on an airline.
 
2013-01-07 04:48:04 AM  

TommyymmoT: Pray 4 Mojo: Serious Black: Pray 4 Mojo: Serious Black: My Maribel is worth about $2,500, and I don't have nearly enough money to fly first class everywhere I go.

Is Maribel a guitar? You leave the "expensive" gear at home.

A $199 Epiphone sounds remarkably similar to a '59 Les Paul in a large venue.

My "cheap" guitar, the Crushinator, is a Squier Strat whose fretboard is so terrible that the strings are automatically out of tune once you pass the fifth fret. I'm pretty sure that would be audible in a large venue.

Yeah... probably. Point taken.

Get a cheaper one then... a decent $1000 American Strat. Back when I was a pup and my band traveled a lot... we all had two (or three) full sets of gear. The "nice enough", road worn gear is what traveled... as it was easily replacable.

That's what I said early in the thread.
Stuff gets stolen. ALOT. Hell, entire TRUCKS get stolen.
Entire venues burn to the ground on occasion.

95% of the audience won't notice if you're playing a Gibson, or an Epiphone, which by the way are pretty good.

If you play well enough, they wont care if it says "Firewood", on the headstock.


You reminded me of something that happened back in the late 80s in Denver. The guitar shop in town for custom work and repair burned to the ground. Nothing but sizzling embers. Not only were  the owner's many guitars burnt to a cinder, about half the serious musicians in town lost at least one axe in that conflagration.

Sad, sad.

/csb
 
2013-01-07 04:48:24 AM  
Bob Falfa:

If you can't afford to lose it, don't take it on a commercial flight.

Everything else aside, this is officially the dumbest comment in the thread.

Not only is it a whopper of a logical fallacy statement, but if you bother to take it to a logical conclusion: nothing (or very nearly so) is worth flying with or for, unless you are a self loathing person who does not value even your own life, since you must be absolutely willing to lose/forfeit said mortal coil in order to fly.

Then again, with air travel being what it is these days...
*rimshot*
 
2013-01-07 04:52:35 AM  

SnakeLee: Pray 4 Mojo: Flight case dude... look into them.

Cyno01: And fta he tried to buy a seat for it even but was denied.

No he didn't. Apparently you and subby both failed to RTFA...

"While boarding in Buffalo, Schneider says he asked Delta staffers not to check in the vintage guitar-which he estimates is worth about $10,000-and allow him to carry it on the plane and place it in an available space, as he did on the flight from Portland."

Here is the knock out blow:  Delta's own farking "allowable carry on items" page.  Here it is

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/baggage/be for e-your-trip/special-items.html

Click on the Musical Instruments tab and then look at what Instruments Can I Carry On?

Here is the text:

What Instruments Can I Carry On?

Guitars and other smaller musical instruments, such as violins, will be accepted as your free carry-on baggage item on Delta and Delta Connection® carriers flights¹. These items must easily fit in the overhead bin or other approved storage location in the cabin, based on available space at the time of boarding. Musical instruments may be gate claimed at the discretion of the passenger and as a result of limited overhead space.

/Google is your friend


Was there available overhead space? I didn't rtfa.

Also if it is something that valuable, why not ship it and have it insured?
 
2013-01-07 04:53:06 AM  

Bob Falfa: Naked Singularity:
So, you're arguing that buying a plane ticket and checking your luggage doesn't constitute a legitimate expectation of proper handling of that luggage?

Yes, but if you choose to transport you Stradivarius in a cardboard shoebox, don't come crying to me.
Insure it and enjoy it. Otherwise, leave it at home.


I'm not the one shipping in cardboard.

So, you're saying that if I'm paying for my luggage to be transferred from point A to point B, I'm the one responsible if the shipper farks up the delivery, regardless of how well I packaged the shipment?

Incidents happen, I accept that (goes with the territory). But those kind of incidents should be the exception, not the rule. I'm struggling here to grasp the idea that it's okay for the airline to trample, stomp on, throw, or otherwise abuse the luggage I've checked.

Are you arguing that it should not only be expected, but treated as normal activity, for my (or your) luggage to be delivered to me in a damaged state?

Are you saying that the baggage handlers are, without exception, a bunch of gorillas with anger management issues, who cannot handle checked baggage without damaging it?

See, this is a matter of what we would call 'normal expectation.' We're paying an airline to move our baggage from point A to point B. The default expectation (of anyone with a brain) is that the baggage will be delivered in the same condition it was checked.

I'm trying to figure out why you think this is such a problem.

Are you one of those baggage handlers who like to destroy luggage?

Why are you (and so many others) so determined to believe that an airline farking up the baggage is the default state of events?

And why are you so willing to forgive them for it?

I accept accidents and unusual circumstances. I don't accept the idea that the controlling authority (in this case, the airline) should be let off the hook for those accidents.
 
2013-01-07 04:55:04 AM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: The guitar shop in town for custom work and repair burned to the ground. Nothing but sizzling embers. Not only were  the owner's many guitars burnt to a cinder, about half the serious musicians in town lost at least one axe in that conflagration.


In 2010 Nashville had a little flood.
 
2013-01-07 04:56:32 AM  

msupf: Bob Falfa:

If you can't afford to lose it, don't take it on a commercial flight.

Everything else aside, this is officially the dumbest comment in the thread.

Not only is it a whopper of a logical fallacy statement, but if you bother to take it to a logical conclusion: nothing (or very nearly so) is worth flying with or for, unless you are a self loathing person who does not value even your own life, since you must be absolutely willing to lose/forfeit said mortal coil in order to fly.

Then again, with air travel being what it is these days...
*rimshot*


Why?

the comment isn't about personal safety... it's about baggage handlers and airlines destroying your stuff.

and yes... they will destroy your stuff. don't want it destroyed, don't fly with it.
 
2013-01-07 05:01:24 AM  

Naked Singularity: I'm struggling here to grasp the idea that it's okay for the airline to trample, stomp on, throw, or otherwise abuse the luggage I've checked.


www.americantourister.ca

And yes... ATA approvals/ratings for luggage and cases (for instruments, golf clubs, fishing rods, snowboards, etc) exist because the abuse of the baggage is to be expected.
 
2013-01-07 05:09:25 AM  

TommyymmoT:

If you play well enough, they wont care if it says "Firewood", on the headstock.


and that right there is the truth. i like the zambonis, but you dont need a 65 gibson to get that sound. flying with a 50 year old instrument checked in baggage in its original case for a farking hannukah themed band is beyond retarded.
 
2013-01-07 05:09:38 AM  

red5ish: Runs_With_Scissors_: The guitar shop in town for custom work and repair burned to the ground. Nothing but sizzling embers. Not only were  the owner's many guitars burnt to a cinder, about half the serious musicians in town lost at least one axe in that conflagration.

In 2010 Nashville had a little flood.


That was a cultural disaster. Just awful

.Naked Singularity:  Lot's of suppositions...

Are you saying that the baggage handlers are, without exception, a bunch of gorillas with anger management issues, who cannot handle checked baggage without damaging it?


And why are you so willing to forgive them for it?

I accept accidents and unusual circumstances. I don't accept the idea that the controlling authority (in this case, the airline) should be let off the hook for those accidents.


Who said that?

Your question has been answered by numerous people in this thread, myself included.
 
2013-01-07 05:11:45 AM  

TommyymmoT: justoneznot: Some of you guys are spending way too much time bickering in this thread. Just make your amusing or interesting post, and move on to the next story. I really think there should be a 1 or 2 post limit per thread.

Hush. ADULTS ARE TALKING.
If you're not too busy, look up the word "discourse".


There's a few traces of adult discourse in this thread, but that's not what I was referring to. I think the rest of us understood who I'm talking about.
 
2013-01-07 05:14:07 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Naked Singularity: I'm struggling here to grasp the idea that it's okay for the airline to trample, stomp on, throw, or otherwise abuse the luggage I've checked.

[www.americantourister.ca image 358x310]

And yes... ATA approvals/ratings for luggage and cases (for instruments, golf clubs, fishing rods, snowboards, etc) exist because the abuse of the baggage is to be expected.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

I'm asking why we seem to think it should be the expected response.

We get people saying that FedEx should be the preferred choice for shipping some kind of luggage, rather than expecting the airline to properly handle checked baggage.

Why do you accept that baggage checking for airline travel is axiomatically inferior to FedEx?

What you seem to be saying is that a passenger carrier is worse than a package carrier (and still you give them your business).

I *do* use FedEx (and UPS) where appropriate.

I also fly myself (and my luggage) when I need to.

I don't see any reason to allow the carrier I use to travel to abrogate themselves from responsibility for what they agreed to (that is, to transport me, and my luggage, from point A to point B, in the same condition I started from).

Me, buying a ticket, is an implicit contract. One that the carrier agrees to.

That contract implies that both I and any baggage I check will arrive at the destination, as agreed (and in the same condition as at the start).

If you think its okay for a carrier to damage some guy's guitar, just because it's a hazard of travel, you have to agree that it's okay for you to be delivered in 25 separate pieces, because it's a hazard of travel.
 
2013-01-07 05:22:04 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: msupf: Bob Falfa:

If you can't afford to lose it, don't take it on a commercial flight.

Everything else aside, this is officially the dumbest comment in the thread.

Not only is it a whopper of a logical fallacy statement, but if you bother to take it to a logical conclusion: nothing (or very nearly so) is worth flying with or for, unless you are a self loathing person who does not value even your own life, since you must be absolutely willing to lose/forfeit said mortal coil in order to fly.

Then again, with air travel being what it is these days...
*rimshot*

Why?

the comment isn't about personal safety... it's about baggage handlers and airlines destroying your stuff.

and yes... they will destroy your stuff. don't want it destroyed, don't fly with it.


I'm not even sure that getting an ATA case is a perfect solution. I've heard of ATA cases getting mangled at the contents getting damaged. If the baggage handlers care enough, they can cause some major damage to just about anything, especially if they "screw up" and the case gets caught in a hydraulic elevator.
 
2013-01-07 05:23:58 AM  

Naked Singularity: Pray 4 Mojo: Naked Singularity: I'm struggling here to grasp the idea that it's okay for the airline to trample, stomp on, throw, or otherwise abuse the luggage I've checked.

[www.americantourister.ca image 358x310]

And yes... ATA approvals/ratings for luggage and cases (for instruments, golf clubs, fishing rods, snowboards, etc) exist because the abuse of the baggage is to be expected.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

I'm asking why we seem to think it should be the expected response.

We get people saying that FedEx should be the preferred choice for shipping some kind of luggage, rather than expecting the airline to properly handle checked baggage.

Why do you accept that baggage checking for airline travel is axiomatically inferior to FedEx?

What you seem to be saying is that a passenger carrier is worse than a package carrier (and still you give them your business).

I *do* use FedEx (and UPS) where appropriate.

I also fly myself (and my luggage) when I need to.

I don't see any reason to allow the carrier I use to travel to abrogate themselves from responsibility for what they agreed to (that is, to transport me, and my luggage, from point A to point B, in the same condition I started from).

Me, buying a ticket, is an implicit contract. One that the carrier agrees to.

That contract implies that both I and any baggage I check will arrive at the destination, as agreed (and in the same condition as at the start).

If you think its okay for a carrier to damage some guy's guitar, just because it's a hazard of travel, you have to agree that it's okay for you to be delivered in 25 separate pieces, because it's a hazard of travel.


Most likely won't be delivered to my destination in 25 little pieces. If I'm in 25 little pieces I expect to be in a field somewhere.
 
2013-01-07 05:26:57 AM  

Naked Singularity: Pray 4 Mojo: Naked Singularity: I'm struggling here to grasp the idea that it's okay for the airline to trample, stomp on, throw, or otherwise abuse the luggage I've checked.

[www.americantourister.ca image 358x310]

And yes... ATA approvals/ratings for luggage and cases (for instruments, golf clubs, fishing rods, snowboards, etc) exist because the abuse of the baggage is to be expected.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

I'm asking why we seem to think it should be the expected response.

We get people saying that FedEx should be the preferred choice for shipping some kind of luggage, rather than expecting the airline to properly handle checked baggage.

Why do you accept that baggage checking for airline travel is axiomatically inferior to FedEx?

What you seem to be saying is that a passenger carrier is worse than a package carrier (and still you give them your business).

I *do* use FedEx (and UPS) where appropriate.

I also fly myself (and my luggage) when I need to.

I don't see any reason to allow the carrier I use to travel to abrogate themselves from responsibility for what they agreed to (that is, to transport me, and my luggage, from point A to point B, in the same condition I started from).

Me, buying a ticket, is an implicit contract. One that the carrier agrees to.

That contract implies that both I and any baggage I check will arrive at the destination, as agreed (and in the same condition as at the start).

If you think its okay for a carrier to damage some guy's guitar, just because it's a hazard of travel, you have to agree that it's okay for you to be delivered in 25 separate pieces, because it's a hazard of travel.


Why are you hassling us about this?

If Fed-Ex or UPS were getting your package to it;s destination in a few hours, they would also have the same problems.

I don't accept that it's reasonable for my luggage or it's content to be damaged, but the nature of the speed at which baggage has to get from your hand at check in to your hand after you land means that bags need to move quickly... this means they get thrown into carts... get thrown into the plane... get dropped... fall off conveyors... fall off carts... and so on. An airline is not a shipping company... and should not be treated as such.

Airlines should be liable for damage... but when you check a bag you are assuming a risk.
 
2013-01-07 05:33:04 AM  

Serious Black: I'm not even sure that getting an ATA case is a perfect solution


It's not. Not flying is the perfect solution.

Here's a good test before ya'll check something.

Get whatever it is you want to check... go to the top of a 6' ladder... and drop your check item on the ground.

If you don't want to do that... don't check it.
 
2013-01-07 05:33:42 AM  
There's the way things are and the way they ought to be. Let's just say that after 4 decades of flying I know what to expect. Millions of bags transported a year, thrown onto and off of carts, into and out of plane bellies, and finally through automated luggage systems. Your luggage will come out dirty, somewhat beaten up (if you're lucky) or damaged (if you're not).

If you want your luggage to get taken better care of ship it via Fed Ex and make sure it's insured. Or, leave it at home.


Quoting this, not your inaccurate claim that it has been answered:


This isn't to claim that the useless creatures who have been inadvertantly employed to handle airport baggage have some kind of intrinsic validity.

Here's my question (don't view it in the context of what exists, view it in the context of what *should* exist):

Why are you trying to defend the system that botches the handling of airline baggage?

What do you want? Do you want the goal to be that all airline baggage is handled carefully and delivered to the correct location, or do you want it to be handled badly, and treated like shiat?

You seem to have the viewpoint that it isn't possible to properly handle the airline luggage, and so there's no sense in even trying to do it right.

What's wrong with the idea of having a culture of treating the checked baggage as if it were your own?

What's wrong with the idea of taking pride in your work, and making sure that every package is handled with all due care and that it goes where it should?

What's wrong with the concept that we should reject the idea that it's okay to treat these packages in the worst possible way, and not be held accountable for it?

You're defending the idea that it's okay to slack off and treat what comes past you as some kind of inconvenience.

I'm offering up the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to spend the effort to deliver what is promised (that what is checked is delivered in the same condition as when it was presented).
 
2013-01-07 05:38:23 AM  

OptimusHime: In my under-educated opinion, it's not so much that as it is establishing legitimate blame. It's not that it's always on the traveler, so much as the process has a certain amount of assumed risk, and after the damage is done, there are several dozen people that had hands-on activity in the process that are blameless for the one who is actually at fault. So it's hard to determine in a blind blame game on one side or the other who to punish. Unfortunately this does give an imbalance of power to those with the most money and toys, but when has it not? It's the best method we have so far to decide fault, and that it's so imperfect is why "innocent until proven guilty" has become a standard of law.

So it's not okay that luggage is regularly and in some times in large, valuable objects, mishandled. It's just what happens in an imperfect world. Trying to decide empirical fault, be it with the traveler or the company, that's where the shades of grey start. Unfortunately, rarely is there ever a clear and valid solution of "this person/entity destroyed my valuable thing" to determine fault. It's why we still have juries, and why car crashes make such profit for attorneys. It just is.


To emphasize, in your extremely undereducated opinion. You are an exceptionally stupid person.

If I utilize a business, it's a single entity. One person, ten people, a thousand is irrelevant to the responsibility taken on by the singular business. I'm sure a complex business increases chances of an individual employee problems, but that's not the customer's problem, that's the business's. The challenges of business belong to the business, not the customer.

When dealing with a reasonable handled good (and a 10k guitar is reasonable), the business is responsible for either the good in reasonably similar condition or the full value of the item if no malice was involved in destruction. Malice tacks on criminal penalties. If the customer's preparations are insufficient then it is the business's responsibility to object or there is an implicit acceptance.

If this is a rare occurrence then the cost is of little concern to an airline that burns that much kerosine per hour. If it is a common occurrence then it is imperative to the business to correct their practices.
 
2013-01-07 05:38:41 AM  

red5ish: TommyymmoT: Stuff gets stolen. ALOT. Hell, entire TRUCKS get stolen.

Some friends of mine were on tour and they'd parked their equipment truck with the back gate up against a wall to keep thieves from getting into the equipment. The thieves cut open the side of the truck.


That is what is normally done, but it doesn't prevent somebody with access to a tow truck from taking it.
It happened to the Dixie Dregs, and others.

Runs_With_Scissors_: TommyymmoT: Runs_With_Scissors_: TommyymmoT: The case in question:
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
[www.eddievegas.com image 450x337]
I mispoke. Those cases don't go for $600.
This one, is being offered at $1500.

It's not a "cheap" case, it's just the WRONG case for the situation.

Then, I would like to amend my statement: He should have had a proper traveling case. He shouldn't have been cheap and should have purchased a seat for his guitar for all flights.

Ok, too much beer, but I'm going to semi 'out' myself.
In the early 80s, I was working with some very guitar heavy bands.
I was a guitar tech for Roy Buchanan, Johnny Winter, and others.
MULTIPLE guitars, that are today, worth more than most new cars.

Question:
How many seats should I have bought?
How fired would I have been?


I'm guessing the guitars went on the truck or in the bus. Otherwise, wouldn't it be up to the owner to pay for the cost of transport?

How fired would you have been?  Um... 42?

/csb on who you worked with - really


Many times, a tour will be part ground, part air. Usually ground.
Quite often, in the middle of of a bus/truck tour, there will be an isolated show, that you (logistically) have to fly to, and you are dependent on people on the other end,  to actually pay attention to, and actually fullfill your equipment rider requirements.
Drummers, will most typically only take their cymbals, sticks, and pedals, hoping that the rental agency on the other end got it right.
Guitar players only take their instruments, and essential FX.
Keyboard players...pray a lot, usually pray for the sweet release of death.

There is a prominent company in NYC called S.I.R.
It stands for "Studio Instrument Rental", however, most people believe it to stand for "Sorry I Rented", or "shiat IN ROADCASES".
I'm damned sure I've repaired more of THEIR  equipment than THEY EVER have.
die, you cocksuckers!
 
2013-01-07 05:40:53 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Why are you hassling us about this?


Why?

Why are you trying to excuse some airline for damaging checked luggage (or similar)?

Why should any airline be exempt from the implied contract to keep intact the item that was checked?

You seem to believe that it should be normal to expect that it's okay for an airline to damage checked baggage, and that we should, for whatever reason, still be held accountable for what they've done.

This isn't about what could happen in some kind of unusual circumstance.

You seem to be trying to argue that it's entirely okay for an airline to damage any checked item, simply because the passenger wasn't willing to sent it FedEx.
 
2013-01-07 05:48:24 AM  

TommyymmoT: There is a prominent company in NYC called S.I.R.
It stands for "Studio Instrument Rental", however, most people believe it to stand for "Sorry I Rented", or "shiat IN ROADCASES".


Ha!!! Awesome.
 
2013-01-07 05:48:33 AM  
he could always ask Santa Claus to bring him a new one. errr... wait...
 
2013-01-07 05:54:31 AM  

Naked Singularity: Pray 4 Mojo: Why are you hassling us about this?

Why?

Why are you trying to excuse some airline for damaging checked luggage (or similar)?

Why should any airline be exempt from the implied contract to keep intact the item that was checked?

You seem to believe that it should be normal to expect that it's okay for an airline to damage checked baggage, and that we should, for whatever reason, still be held accountable for what they've done.

This isn't about what could happen in some kind of unusual circumstance.

You seem to be trying to argue that it's entirely okay for an airline to damage any checked item, simply because the passenger wasn't willing to sent it FedEx.


Agreed.
If you're on the road, do you really want your $10,000 guitar shipped to some motel that you've never been to, and expect that it's going to be there every night, safe and sound?

What if you're doing a few months of one-nighters?
FedEx might be good, but they aren't THAT good.
Besides, who the hell in that situation, has the time to pack, (in my own experience) 3, or 4 guitars every day, and send them out?
 
2013-01-07 05:56:03 AM  

OptimusHime: By "DENIED", it is likely that's because THE FLIGHT WAS FULL.

Why else would Delta NOT sell him an empty seat? "Hey Delta, I need a seat for my guitar, and money is no object". Delta: "We have a seat, but won't take your money, we'd rather leave it empty"
Said no airline, ever.
So why didn't he buy a second seat when he booked, if this was the plan?

Well, perhaps that rule about allowing it as a carry-on CAUSED the problem. This is a very large carry-on, you must admit. He's allowed to do so, but if there's no space for everyone's carry-ons, people will be forced to check bags. This is surely what happened, h ...

Are you responding to my post specifically? Because I think I'm pretty close to Switzerland on this issue on the neutrality spectrum...

But for the sake of argument: Delta as a company would probably sell him a ticket on the spot. They should have the credit card swipers for drinks enabled to buy tickets as well just in that eventuality. But could I see a flight attendant saying "Sir, no, we're happy to check it, but right now you need to sit down."? Absolutely. Because selling someone a seat on the spot takes time these employees aren't paid for, and the people they work for will fire them for less.

Still, I think you're picking a fight where there isn't one to be offered... I don't disagree with your stance, I just think it's a little hasty of a conclusion.


Not responding that specifically. A lot of people kept emphasizing Delta DENIED his request. It seems likely to me that his request was impossible.

I suppose it could also be that the flight attendant found no room for him to carry it on-board, but there WERE unused seats open, but she didn't want to let him strap it in one without a ticket and she was unable to sell him a ticket to put it in a seat.

Seems like if it was that complicated, he would have described it though.
 
2013-01-07 06:00:42 AM  

Naked Singularity: Why?

Why are you trying to excuse some airline for damaging checked luggage (or similar)?


I'm not.

Why should any airline be exempt from the implied contract to keep intact the item that was checked?


They shouldn't.

You seem to believe that it should be normal to expect that it's okay for an airline to damage checked baggage, and that we should, for whatever reason, still be held accountable for what they've done.


I can't help what I seem to be saying.

This isn't about what could happen in some kind of unusual circumstance.


Okay.

You seem to be trying to argue that it's entirely okay for an airline to damage any checked item, simply because the passenger wasn't willing to sent it FedEx.


Again... can't help that.

I already explained that airlines are not shipping companies... and why they are held to a lower standard of service than UPS or FedEx. You can go ahead and keep asking the same question and ignoring my (our) answers if you want... but it's not going to change the answers.

If airlines/airports could spend the time and money to upgrade their system to virtually eliminate baggage damage... they could... but the market has spoken.

customers chose to run through a gauntlet where 1 in every 1000 bags is destroyed... rather than pay more money and spend more time at the airport.
 
2013-01-07 06:03:35 AM  
Late to the thread. I am curious as to why people think he tried to buy a ticket. He states that he asked to use an unused seat, and that he pointed out an article which allows musicians to buy a seat. Nowhere does it state that he tried to buy a seat.
 
2013-01-07 06:03:54 AM  
I can't really say I have a specific opinion about this particular case (though it seems to me that he asked the right questions), but I am going to have to ask:

There seems to be (among some) the idea that we should expect the carrier to treat our property in the worst possible way.

Not in the sense that sometimes things get messed up because of unusual circumstances, but that the very existence of air travel somehow translates to the fact that your property will be vandalized, just because it can be.

And a lot of those who make the above claim will say that you should have used a shipping company (like FedEx, etc.).

Maybe they work for that company.

But here's my take on it:

I'm buying a ticket on an airline (maybe from Dallas to Denver, for example).

I'm checking my suitcase.

I don't think that I'm wrong to expect that both myself and my suitcase make it from Dallas to Denver in the same state as when we started.

That's what I'm paying for.

Who really thinks that there's some value in being an apologist for anyone who thinks it's normal activity to destroy the suitcase in transit?

Why is it that some believe that the default behavior is to damage the suitcase (and that it then becomes the fault of the traveller for not adequately forseeing that this damage would occur)?

Open question:

Why do you believe that it's okay to expect that your property should be damaged, simply because you chose to fly, and not ship your property via FedEx?
 
2013-01-07 06:06:45 AM  

Frederf: OptimusHime: In my under-educated opinion, it's not so much that as it is establishing legitimate blame. It's not that it's always on the traveler, so much as the process has a certain amount of assumed risk, and after the damage is done, there are several dozen people that had hands-on activity in the process that are blameless for the one who is actually at fault. So it's hard to determine in a blind blame game on one side or the other who to punish. Unfortunately this does give an imbalance of power to those with the most money and toys, but when has it not? It's the best method we have so far to decide fault, and that it's so imperfect is why "innocent until proven guilty" has become a standard of law.

So it's not okay that luggage is regularly and in some times in large, valuable objects, mishandled. It's just what happens in an imperfect world. Trying to decide empirical fault, be it with the traveler or the company, that's where the shades of grey start. Unfortunately, rarely is there ever a clear and valid solution of "this person/entity destroyed my valuable thing" to determine fault. It's why we still have juries, and why car crashes make such profit for attorneys. It just is.

To emphasize, in your extremely undereducated opinion. You are an exceptionally stupid person.

If I utilize a business, it's a single entity. One person, ten people, a thousand is irrelevant to the responsibility taken on by the singular business. I'm sure a complex business increases chances of an individual employee problems, but that's not the customer's problem, that's the business's. The challenges of business belong to the business, not the customer.

When dealing with a reasonable handled good (and a 10k guitar is reasonable), the business is responsible for either the good in reasonably similar condition or the full value of the item if no malice was involved in destruction. Malice tacks on criminal penalties. If the customer's preparations are insufficient then it is the ...


I don't know what made you think I was taking a side in this fight, or an unreasonable viewpoint. Yours is plenty valid. I think it's good that customers hold a business for more than they are legally responsible, it's what is needed to narrow the line of legitimate suites between corporate malfeasance and consumer frivolity. I'm just saying, shades of gray. Not taking a side. If you think it's stupid for me to admit that I don't know what actually transpired on the plane and not take your side or the other's, well, I wish you the best, because clearly you aren't interested in taking part in a genuine discourse. You've already lowered yourself to making personal attacks at the start, so I really feel sorry for you that calling me stupid is your opening salvo. I just wanted to take part in a discussion and would like to be proven wrong, since I'm for seeing a beast like an airline corporation taken down a peg or two as much as the next man.
 
2013-01-07 06:09:03 AM  
i471.photobucket.com

...DTW baggage worker in question?
 
2013-01-07 06:10:04 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Late to the thread. I am curious as to why people think he tried to buy a ticket. He states that he asked to use an unused seat, and that he pointed out an article which allows musicians to buy a seat. Nowhere does it state that he tried to buy a seat.


Pfft... shut up you farking dumbass and read the article!!!

Just wanted you to feel the fun from that some of us got from the resident fark geniuses.

As for the actual answer... it's because they were trolled by a relatively clever Yahoo writer who wanted to beef up his story.
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report