Joe Bonamassa's JP broken by airline

[gtrman66]

That sucks......good thing he has other guitars to use....small consolation I know but if it happened to those of us with only one or two guitars.....shudder to think.Make the airline pay Joe,MAKE THEM PAY

 

[whitestrat]

Wow. It doesn't matter who you are ... airlines just like to break stuff.

I'd like to clarify something here, and possibly shed some light on how Airports function generally. I'm not making excuses, but would like to share some tips on what to do when you travel with expensive BREAKABLE stuff.

Firstly, the Airline did NOT (I repeat), did NOT cause the breakage of the guitar. The luggage isn't even handled by the airline. most people blame the Airline because it's the most convenient thing to do, and because generally, they don't know better. You know who's responsible? The Airport Regulatory Body.

Why do I say this? Because I'm now working in a company that DOES handle your baggage when you fly: The ground handler.

Your precious guitars, no matter how sealed in their cases, are transferred by belt down to a packing station. There's minimal chance for breakage there because there's minimal movement. Except that the whole case is moving, but in a smooth fashion.

The case then is loaded BY HAND into an aircraft container. There are about 8 to 10 such possible containers on any given flight. Here's where the problem can occur. These containers, while are shut and sealed for security reasons, are packed by a team of maximum 4 to 5 staff who handle the luggage for the entire flight.

Imagine 5 guys, having to carry 400 baggs of approximately 15kg each, and having to do that for about 15 to 20 flights a day. How much patience would you have if you were that person seeing a LARGE HEAVY case coming down the belt at the end of the day? Bear in mind that this is probably a unionised blue-collared worker, who doesn't have much patience or tolerances to begin with for things that might piss him off easily. Like heavy bags. Worse bit? The Airport Regulator insists that every flight must be packed and loaded within 45 minutes. Add new bags, last minute check-ins and transshipment (transfer flights) baggages, and you got a big mess in every flight.

They are also not that well educated, and most of the time are not able to see the bigger picture, and might vent their frustrations on a "dead" bag.

Also, whatever is in that container, is NOT secured. Items can be thrown around during takeoff or landing. This is normal procedure. The safest place for your breakables is either in a hand carry, or in a hardcase luggage. As far as possible, NEVER use a soft case because the contents can be damaged easily upon impact. (That, and also that the zips are the easiest to break into).

Upon landing, every airport regulator has a timeline imposed on the ground handlers for luggage facilitation. It's 12 minutes for my country for the first bag to show up on the belt from the point of arrival of the aircraft. I'm not sure about other airports, but there are similar guidelines. There is no focus on care for the bags from the regulatory point of view, only speed, because they believe that speed is the best way to win the passenger's happiness about visiting the airport.

Every time a bag is late, the ground handler is fined a penalty fee of several thousand dollars per flight. Add all that up, and the amounts are staggering. So, because of this regulation on speed, the ground handlers are pressured into delivering the bags to the belt within a time limit, and because of this rush, the bags are "loaded" onto the belt. THROWN is more like it.

So, in all fairness, it's not the airline's fault, though some airlines like to "self-handle" rather than employ a ground handler for themselves, though baggage is usually a ground handler.

Also, while there is no insurance claim from the airline (it's technically not their fault, see?) that can cover this, the baggage handlers at the airports DO try to resolve this if it is reported. But if you leave the airport without checking your stuff, then they will not entertain returned claims. So please check your guitars BEFORE you leave the airport premises.

My heart goes out to JB's baritone, but having seen how these things can happen, I'm surprised that ONLY the baritone was affected.

Again, no excuses, just shedding some light on how things work, so you guys can know more about how to protect yourselves.

 

[Big Poppa]

THanks lionel

 

[beej]

I do appreciate all of that Lionel, it's not lost on me.

But the airline is the one who takes our money. Whether the baggage handling is outsourced doesn't factor into it for the average flyer. You pay someone to carry you and your luggage, and you pay a ton of extra money if it's heavy, presumably because of the extra handling difficulty. Therein lie the expectations.

And what's the alternative? Don't fly with delicate stuff? There's got to be way to do it. Charge more of a different class of baggage handling, check it yourself at the back of the plane ... something.

 

[bkrumme]

Thanks, Lionel!

Having some perspective on how things work behind the scenes helps calm the nerves a bit.

 

[Dante]

beej, that's great for us twits travelling with ONE piece of gear, but what's about people who need to move a gig in an airplane? i mean, you have to have everything and everyone there at the same time. one guitar might actually be doable, but how many guitars did Joe take with himself on that plane?

the problem is, you have one guy with alot of delicate stuff, and 300.000 with nothing but clothing and cheap souveniers. that's what makes the touring bus such a die hard standard for touring: reliable, cheap and just plain cool.

 

[whitestrat]

And what's the alternative? Don't fly with delicate stuff? There's got to be way to do it. Charge more of a different class of baggage handling, check it yourself at the back of the plane ... something.

The way to do it is this.

If you're flying as a gig, and have tons of equipment, don't spare the effort and cash, and get a full travel insurance for that equipment, AND get it handled by a professional cargo courier. Don't leave it to the people who are meant to handle clothing baggage to look after a mixer or an amplifier. It will get killed, just a matter of time. The passenger flights are NOT equipped to handle delicates. Have it shipped via courier. The courier will pack it into a palette sized load, and it can be loaded SECURED by forklift onto the aircraft. Each palette is packed tightly within the aircraft, and the goods on that palette are all tied down by secured lines and are also wrapped before tying down.

The airline's main focus is getting you there safely. There's nothing in your ticketing clause about baggage (go read it if you don't believe me). All airlines post a "caveat emptor" regarding delicate stuff. They will TRY to take care of it, but cannot be held responsible. Best for the individual guitar? Ship it with DHL, FedEx, UPS, you name it. Pick ANY high end courier, and you'll get your stuff there on time.

In my previous job, which was with luxury watches, we NEVER transported anything without a courier. Not only do you get the insurance assurance, you also to have full accountability of your shipment, which includes condition of arrival. And you're talking about a few hundreds of thousands per shipment in cost value. Retail value? A few million.

Yes, the alternative (and correct way) may be more expensive, but consider the alternative. A few hundred in shipping charges? or a few thousands in a new guitar?

Of course, if you're allowed to hand carry that one guitar, by all means, do it. But then, you have little control of how your guitar is handled by an Air Stewardess who's less concerned about your guitar than her spine.

 

[whitestrat]

Beej? Have I answered your question? Anything else you'd like to know?

 

[beej]

Hey Lionel-

That's a great answer, I do appreciate it.

I still think that airlines over-promise on the baggage end. If you're going to take money for services, you have to deliver. Esp when you charge (significantly) extra for over-weight baggage. As a consumer, it's very frustrating.

But yes ... I would most certainly insure something if it were that important to me. Perhaps airlines could start offering that product themselves to make an extra buck ... just start hiring the actuaries.

 

[whitestrat]

I still think that airlines over-promise on the baggage end. If you're going to take money for services, you have to deliver. Esp when you charge (significantly) extra for over-weight baggage. As a consumer, it's very frustrating.

Yep, I do understand that bit. I do think that airlines are a bit "hands-off" in their approach to baggage integrity on their end. While they do load their counter staff with the disclaimers and all, I find that the support infrastructure for mishandled baggage (that's the official term in these circles) is pretty weak. It's almost as if they're happy to take your money for the ticket, but everything else is incidental.

BTW, the overweight charge for the baggage used to make not much sense for me, but now having seen what is involved regarding overweight baggage, I can understand. There's more to it than meets the eye, and no, you're not paying for what you think you are.

Here's an insight to ease your frustrations:

The plane (Boeing 777) loads approximately 3,000 to 4,500kg worth of Jet Fuel for average flights. This is calculated by estimated the number of potential check-ins, and a load plan is devised. This load plan takes into account not so much weight differences, but rather, weight distribution. Did you know that the Jet can't take off if it's not evenly laid out? This plan is usually stuck to, but when a passenger comes with overweight baggage (and there's usually more than one such passenger), the entire load plan needs to be recalculated.

Your baggage is usually already loaded in general about 45 mins before the flight (hence the 2hr check-in period). But because of a change in the plan, the entire flight needs to be repacked, redistributed, replanned and reloaded within 30 mins. (hence the 30 mins cut-off time for last minute check-ins) What you're paying for is not so much the extra fuel needed for your bag (because it's essentially not that much) but rather, the extra work that goes behind the scenes for the flight.

Again, the charge for extra baggage is not meant to look after your baggage, but to allow you to take it on board, because it will cause disruption in the flight safety.

The plane exhausts about 1,500kg of fuel JUST for take-off, and about 800kg or so for landings. The rest is expended during cruising, and extra fuel for emergencies.

While the plane can take of with that load, it cannot land with that load. That's why usually if there's an emergency landing just after take-off, the pilot has to dump the fuel before he begins the landing procedure.

The entire flight is extremely weight sensitive, and therefore any amendments to the load plan is crucial, and takes a lot of work to sort it out. Every extra kilogram matters, or rather, where it's placed.

That's what you're paying for.

P.S. this is also why you may ask for a certain seat, and it might be refused even though the seat is empty. The passengers on the flight need to be evenly distributed for take off and landings. While cruising, it doesn't matter.

Perhaps airlines could start offering that product themselves to make an extra buck ... just start hiring the actuaries.

Thanks for the tip... I'll look into this and see if there's something there worth checking out! If I get a promotion from this, I'll fedex you a beer keg!

 

[glockaxis]

Led Zeppelin had it right when they bought their own plane for touring

 

[beej]

Excellent answers again ... thanks for the insight Lionel.

 

[whitestrat]

No worries Beej. Glad to be of some value to this forum with whatever little I know.

 

[petruccirocks02]

Led Zeppelin had it right when they bought their own plane for touring

Same with Iron Maiden. Bruce flies them to most of their own destinations. Ever see Flight 666?

-Phil

 

[beej]

Led Zeppelin had it right when they bought their own plane for touring

I think they just leased it. So they could fly back to a central location and stay the same hotel, etc. for different legs of their tours.

 

[Lukesilo]

Metallica had a plane too but their gear went by truck, of course unless they flew it over seas then it trucked from spot to spot.

 

[whitestrat]

I think they just leased it. So they could fly back to a central location and stay the same hotel, etc. for different legs of their tours.

Well, Iron Maiden bought their own plane for sure... More than one, I think... Bruce Dickinson himself flew it.

 

[beej]

Sorry, I meant Zep ... they definitely didn't own it.

 

[DrGonzo5150]

Well, Iron Maiden bought their own plane for sure... More than one, I think... Bruce Dickinson himself flew it.

As I understand, Maiden commissioned the 757 from Astraeus, with whom Bruce is employed as a Captain. Ed Force One was actually used for commercial flights, in addition to the first leg of their tour. The same plane was then used solely for touring purposes on the second half of the tour in 2009.

Ps. The Starship was definitely not owned by Zepplin, just leased for tours... As i recall, it was actually owned by Bobby Sherman or something haha end hijack

 

[ProtoChicken]

As I understand, Maiden commissioned the 757 from Astraeus, with whom Bruce is employed as a Captain. Ed Force One was actually used for commercial flights, in addition to the first leg of their tour. The same plane was then used solely for touring purposes on the second half of the tour in 2009.

This is correct. I saw 8 dates in multiple countries on that tour, lots of fun. I believe on the 2nd half of the tour in North America they used buses to go form city to city, which was why they were able to have the giant mummified Eddie for the 2nd leg which they couldn't fit on to the plane for the 1st leg.