Will somebody think of the violins?

August 22, 2006 11:12 AM

New airline security regulations in the UK have taken their toll on the touring musicians who used to be able to take their delicate and/or rare instruments as carry-on luggage. Many are forced to either take their chances in the cargo hold or take ferries to countries with less restrictive security guidelines. Others contemplate staying home from touring completely. (via BBC)
posted by dr_dank (40 comments total)

But dasdardly terrorists could use slippery violin rosin to trip up stewards and stewardesses walking up and down the aisle! Anyway, we have monitored tubes set up for you artist types.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:25 AM on August 22, 2006

You know, I think the new rules are downright stupid, but some of this would be a non issue if airline baggage handling didn't suck so much. I find it odd that I can have a $3000 laptop fedexed from Malaysia, with no fear, but I wouldn't think of checking the same laptop on a 45 minute flight to LA. Maybe FedEx should start offering passenger service?
posted by doctor_negative at 11:26 AM on August 22, 2006

This must be part of a new strategy to distract terrorists. They can't plot against us if they're busy laughing hysterically.

I predict that the terrorists' next move will be to leak information about their plans to disguise a bomb as pants.
posted by mullingitover at 11:30 AM on August 22, 2006 [4 favorites]

In a standard case violins could be easily damaged. Surely the simple solution here is a bigger case which offers more protection. Get a double bass sized case, made of aluminium, filled with insulating material and whatever is inside is going to be protected from pretty much everything including a bear attack.
posted by bap98189 at 11:31 AM on August 22, 2006

If you haven't reached your daily limit of drama queenery, scroll down to Candice Madison's comment.

She couldn't BEAR to touch another cello after hers was destroyed at the airport over a decade ago. Hell, she can no longer eat jello, since they sound so similar.
posted by dr_dank at 11:36 AM on August 22, 2006

In a standard case violins could be easily damaged. Surely the simple solution here is a bigger case which offers more protection.

Beyond protection from dropping and throwing there is also the problem of subjecting instruments which often include delicate wood, cork, and other materials, to extremes of temperature, humidity, and pressure.

Your solution of a violin in a double-bass case isn't really all that workable, either. OK, that "solves" the violinist's problem, but what do you get to store a double bass? A submarine?
posted by flug at 11:43 AM on August 22, 2006

In some cases the musicians are contractually bound not to let their particularly valuable instrument out of sight, so they can not check the instrument even if they wanted to take the chance. I read of some Russian musicians who ending up having to take the train home from England after the recent incident because of this.
posted by edgeways at 11:46 AM on August 22, 2006

I was paranoid about putting my guitar (an old Stratocaster) in cargo hold on the way to and from Amsterdam. This was back in October 2001 (shortly after Sept 11) so we were not allowed any cases in cabin. It is a legit concern since temperatures can reach -70 degrees down there. My Strat made it through ok (minus a latch) so I can imagine what havoc it could wreck on a delicate violin.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:04 PM on August 22, 2006

With regards the extremes of temperature, humidity, and pressure. Luggage compartments are at the same pressure as the main cabin, and if cats and dogs can withstand the 'extreme temperature and humidity' of the hold I think a violin in a good case will be just fine too.
posted by zeoslap at 12:05 PM on August 22, 2006

Meanwhile: 'Terror plot' suspects in court

_{(Here's the wikipedia article if any Americans need the concept of a 'court' explained to them.)}
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on August 22, 2006

I predict that the terrorists' next move will be to leak information about their plans to disguise a bomb as pants.
posted by mullingitover at 1:30 PM CST on August 22 [+ 1] [!]

Exploding pants.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:14 PM on August 22, 2006

Zeoslap: My father is an (ex-) commercial pilot, and he tells me that heating in the cargo hold is controlled from the cockpit, and is frequently left off when they're not carrying anything alive.

-70 is extreme, but -40c isn't unheard of.
posted by Mwongozi at 12:19 PM on August 22, 2006

The new regulation seem consistent. You couldn't very well tell people they can't carry an extra book or pillow on but let the next person in line carry on a large musical instrument with lots of wood, plastic, and metal bits in which you could hide things and which (for obvious reasons) you won't allow the guards to dismantle. There would be fist fights at the ticket counter.

But there ought to be a more expensive option that allows early arrivals to the airport to have a piece of carry-on luggage thoroughly examined (X-rays, dogs, exorcists, psychics, whatever), perhaps sealed in a bag, placed in a secure place at the departure gate, picked up as you go through the gate to board the plane, placed by you in a locked and fireproof compartment for the duration of the flight (maybe a sealed container in the hold?), and carried off by you at the other end of the flight. All the handling would be done by you or a security officer in front of you. If it's a valuable piece of stuff that you have to carry on, you'll pay the extra 20 dollars or more for the service. Meanwhile, everyone else gets a faster trip through the line because they aren't waiting for the super-searches and because the added cost would reduce the number of extra carry-ons to only those that are really needed.

How do they search and ship animals? Are their cages thrown around like the rest of the baggage in the hold?
posted by pracowity at 12:19 PM on August 22, 2006

NY Times article on same thing from last week.
posted by wfc123 at 12:26 PM on August 22, 2006

and if cats and dogs can withstand the 'extreme temperature and humidity' of the hold I think a violin in a good case will be just fine too.

My cat has no problem all summer and all winter, but my double bass would splinters if I didn't watch humidity and temperature around the house carefully.

Varnished and glued (and friction-fit) wood that's decades old is a lot more sensitive to environmental conditions than sentient things that can drink and pee as required.
posted by mendel at 12:34 PM on August 22, 2006

Would be splinters. Would BE splinters.
posted by mendel at 12:34 PM on August 22, 2006

bap98189 writes "Get a double bass sized case, made of aluminium, filled with insulating material and whatever is inside is going to be protected from pretty much everything including a bear attack."

Unless it gets sent to Easter Island and you never see it again.

zeoslap writes "if cats and dogs can withstand the 'extreme temperature and humidity' of the hold I think a violin in a good case will be just fine too."

Wood (especially old wood) is way more sensitive to extremes of humidity than cats or dogs. Besides which pets get extra special handling and even then some die every year.
posted by Mitheral at 12:48 PM on August 22, 2006

I think I've read somewhere around that one of the more expensive solutions might be increased use of private charters.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:53 PM on August 22, 2006

Meanwhile, everyone else gets a faster trip through the line because they aren't waiting for the super-searches and because the added cost would reduce the number of extra carry-ons to only those that are really needed.

So, you can either get to the airport early to avoid needing to check luggage, or get to the airport early to check luggage.

Or, you can simply stop passenger flights, which solves the "terrorist problem" nicely -- for some value of "solve", of course.

Or perhaps, we can realize that the threat, as positied and defended against, isn't real, and stop catering to cowards. Liquid bombs are a tiny threat. I'm far more worried things that are merely very unlikely, like missle attacks against airlines, the Cubs winning the World Series, and my having a heart attack walking down the street.
posted by eriko at 12:53 PM on August 22, 2006

Meanwhile, everyone else gets a faster trip through the line because they aren't waiting for the super-searches and because the added cost would reduce the number of extra carry-ons to only those that are really needed.

So, you can either get to the airport early to avoid needing to check luggage, or get to the airport early to check luggage.

Or, you can simply stop passenger flights, which solves the "terrorist problem" nicely -- for some value of "solve", of course.

Or perhaps, we can realize that the threat, as positied and defended against, isn't real, and stop catering to cowards. Liquid bombs are a tiny threat. I'm far more worried things that are merely very unlikely, like missle attacks against airlines, the Cubs winning the World Series, and my having a heart attack walking down the street.
posted by eriko at 12:53 PM on August 22, 2006

The problem is they aren't going to stop every possible threat thru restrictions like this unless they strip the passengers naked, perform body cavity searchs and sedate them. The UK had a good thing going here -- investigate and watch the bad guys and (eventually) arrest them. While there is an active threat that can't be detected easily (i.e. while the authorities are still trying to round everyone up), it might make sense to have blanket restrictions. But day to day with no known active threat? That's just silly. A month from now? Silly. The US restrictions when there was no evidence that these bad guys were already in the US? Silly.

And the TSA at least is talking like these restrictions are permanent. If they permanently restricted everything that could be used to commit terrorism on a plane we'd be naked, sedated, etc.

The really silly thing about this is while we make committing terrorist acts on planes really hard (or so we think), we are making it (relatively) easier to commit them in other situations. The whole thing just shows the futility of putting so much emphasis on stopping the bad guys while they are in the act. It works a lot better if you catch them *before* they have the bomb at your doorstep. Or prevent them from becoming "the bad guys" in the first place.

Or on preview, what eriko said.
posted by R343L at 12:56 PM on August 22, 2006

New airport security measures put the fun back in flying.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:10 PM on August 22, 2006

Or, you can simply stop passenger flights

Maybe not stop them, but reducing flights by half or more would be nice.
posted by pracowity at 2:15 PM on August 22, 2006

Hey guys, Just dont play if there are any MPs in the audience.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:51 PM on August 22, 2006

As I understand it, the other problem with checking instruments, related to temperature control in baggage is the rapid changes. It might be a relatively survivable temperature in the baggage hold while the plane is in the air. But it might be 110 degrees on the tarmac where the instrument sits for 10 minutes while the baggage is being moved. Then the airport itself is airconditioned again. So it may swing up and down 50 or more degrees in the space of half an hour.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:54 PM on August 22, 2006

So heat and pressurize the cargo hold, and train the ground crew not to throw stuff around especially if it's marked fragile.
posted by orthogonality at 5:33 PM on August 22, 2006

So heat and pressurize the cargo hold, and train the ground crew not to throw stuff around especially if it's marked fragile.

I would love to live in that perfect world in which this perfectly reasonable idea would actually be consistently implemented.

And studies have shown that ground crews suffer from an incurable type of dyslexia, specific to their job category, which causes them to read and interpret the word "fragile" as "please throw this around."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:05 PM on August 22, 2006

Even if the ground crew doesn't throw things around if they're marked "fragile" that doesn't stop things from shifting in the cargo hold. And again, that doesn't help musicians who are contractually obligated to never allow others to handle their instruments -- or BB King. (Do you want some baggage handler anywhere near Lucille? I surely don't!)
posted by Dreama at 8:11 PM on August 22, 2006

With regards the extremes of temperature, humidity, and pressure. Luggage compartments are at the same pressure as the main cabin, and if cats and dogs can withstand the 'extreme temperature and humidity' of the hold I think a violin in a good case will be just fine too.

zeoslap: I'm probably being a little oversensitive here (I'm flying from the West Coast to Ohio on Saturday, and I'm sure as hell bringing my violin as a carryon), but I find this to be really condescending. Are you a musician? A luthier? An aircraft luggage handling type person? Because I know the kinds of things that can damage or destroy an instrument, and sudden pressure change, temperature change, humidity change, movement, poor handling, and any other unforseen events in the hold could quite literally ruin my life. I have to travel with my violin more often than I'd like, and every single time it's a nerve-wracking experience. I'm always worried that this will be the trip that for whatever reason this will be the day they don't let me fly with my instrument, and from there I literally don't know where I'd go. I would be completely helpless, completely stranded. Trying to minimize my concerns (hell, being patronizing to musicians everywhere) by saying that a violin in a good case will be "just fine" in a cargo hold is an insult.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:55 PM on August 22, 2006

doctor_negative: "I find it odd that I can have a $3000 laptop fedexed from Malaysia, with no fear, but I wouldn't think of checking the same laptop on a 45 minute flight to LA."
You do know that alot of the fedex stuff is handled by the same ground crews that do the passenger planes?

Perhaps the bags would get better treatment if they paid the handlers enough to actually care.

I left YVR a few months ago, i worked on the ramp for over a year. The pay was about $9 an hour and thats not just baggage handling, we were also the people with the glow wands guiding in the planes, de-icing, ect...

The only thing that mattered was the turn around time. Broken bags can always be blamed on the other airports but if its late the airlines know its your fault.

Marking stuff fragile often exposes it to more danger. on big planes most the bags will get put in metal containers and then loaded on the plane (bag could be in container at the bottom of a stack of 6 bags), but for some airlines fragile bags are left till last, so they are sitting around on the ground, easy to get crushed by the tugs. Then the fragile bags are loaded in the bulk hold the plane using a beltloader, and for a 747 that bulk hold door is pretty high, about 2 stories. Bags fall off the side of that beltloader onto the concrete.

All in all, a fair amount of broken bags. But no hurt pets. No one i worked with was cruel, so we always paid special attention to pets, because if they fell off the belt loader they would probably die. But i dont think there would be that kind of care for something inanimate, especially because pets do cause planes to have delayed departures.
posted by Iax at 11:10 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you haven't reached your daily limit of drama queenery, scroll down to Candice Madison's comment.
She couldn't BEAR to touch another cello after hers was destroyed at the airport over a decade ago. Hell, she can no longer eat jello, since they sound so similar.

Yeah, the unique-snowflakeism among musicians is stinking up that thread pretty badly.

ground crews suffer from an incurable type of dyslexia, specific to their job category, which causes them to read and interpret the word "fragile" as "please throw this around."
posted by oaf at 12:08 AM on August 23, 2006

Er...I meant to agree with the last thing I italicized above.
posted by oaf at 12:24 AM on August 23, 2006

> All in all, a fair amount of broken bags.

Let shipping firms include a small, reusable black box in every valuable package to record the exact time, place, severity, and direction of every impact, so broken bags could not be blamed on other airports.

Suddenly shit wouldn't be falling off beltloaders and run over by tugs, because you'd all find ways to make the system better without slowing it down. Bad workers would get the boot, bad equipment and procedures would be improved or replaced, and bad shipping schedules and prices would be made more realistic.
posted by pracowity at 12:30 AM on August 23, 2006

pracowity, not going to happen.

Some planes have to all be loaded by hand, its all bulk hold. And some, 737, the hold is really long and too low to stand. so one person is stacking while hunched over, and the 2nd person is at the door and is throwing the bags to them as they come off the beltloader. Theres no other way to do it that wouldnt take atleast twice as long or require twice the number of workers. The airlines want quick turn arounds because if the plane isnt flying it isnt making money. The planes also dont get to park at the gates for free.

Even with blackboxes I wouldnt ship something thats too fragile. Stuff would still fall off beltloaders, especially odd shaped fragiles. When the beltloader is at a 747 its at a really step angle. And that still wouldnt help for crushing. And there is no way to avoid the fact that sometimes your bag is going to be at the bottom of the stack of all the other bags.

Anyways, rght now there is such a worker shortage that the union isnt even complaining when the supervisors/managers get out on the ramp and start loading the planes(pretty much everyday now). Everyone can work as much OT as they want to aswell.
Its probably just easier to post a sign saying "not responsible for lost/damaged bags"
posted by Iax at 1:34 AM on August 23, 2006

If planes are hard to load, that is of course the fault of bad, old design. Newer aircraft take ULDs for more more sensible cargo handling.

But still use black boxes to find out who is breaking shipped stuff. As soon as each shift of baggage handlers at each airport can be held responsible for every item it breaks, things will change.
posted by pracowity at 2:31 AM on August 23, 2006

Broken stuff happens. What pisses me off more is stolen stuff. You can't lock a suitcase anymore, and the evil bastards will help themselves to whatever they fancy.

And with the change in rules, how about a nullification of that stinking Warsaw Pact (or whatever it's called) that limits the amount of liability to the airline? I never did like that, but was able to live with it. Not anymore!

What about business travelers that can't carry-on their laptops? Are they and their companies going to be properly compensated for a lost/stolen/damaged laptop that was crucial to the whole purpose of the trip, including loss of revenue?

If there was a real interest in handling this intelligently, we'd have special checking procedures for otherwise carry-on articles. Like checking it at the gate or even the plane, and it goes into special secure containers, to be handed over equally fast at the destination.
posted by Goofyy at 3:28 AM on August 23, 2006

Broken stuff happens. What pisses me off more is stolen stuff. You can't lock a suitcase anymore, and the evil bastards will help themselves to whatever they fancy.

Yes, use sealed containers that are loaded and unloaded in front of security personnel and cameras. Lock it, seal it, ship it, and don't open it again until security people and cameras are there to observe. Cameras and storage are cheap -- record everything at every step, and let people watch video of their container being deplaned and unloaded.

But that's another messed up system -- business travel. If it's general business presentations and stuff, you shouldn't have to travel with a laptop that is "crucial to the whole purpose of the trip" -- your data should get there electronically (or on your keychain) and should work with hardware you borrow on the plane or pick up on the other end of your trip. Why the hell carry heavy computer hardware with you? And you probably shouldn't be making most of your business trips to begin with. That's what teleconferences are supposed to be for...
posted by pracowity at 4:57 AM on August 23, 2006

pracowity writes "Suddenly shit wouldn't be falling off beltloaders and run over by tugs, because you'd all find ways to make the system better without slowing it down."

Instead it would just disappear so that the black box couldn't be read.

pracowity writes "If it's general business presentations and stuff, you shouldn't have to travel with a laptop that is 'crucial to the whole purpose of the trip' -- your data should get there electronically (or on your keychain) and should work with hardware you borrow on the plane or pick up on the other end of your trip. Why the hell carry heavy computer hardware with you?"

I guess this would work if they are just running powerpoint. If they need to run Arc or Land Desktop or Solidworks no so much. It takes me 8-12 hours to prepare a machine, and that is with the full capabilities of my office where I have access to install media and license servers.
posted by Mitheral at 6:54 AM on August 23, 2006

I think that in pracowity's perfect world we'd all stay home. All the time. Forever.
posted by mephron at 8:17 AM on August 23, 2006

Instead it would just disappear so that the black box couldn't be read.

But you'd know the last checkpoint in the system, so you and their bosses would know where it disappeared and therefore who "lost" it. You could even have the disappeance on video -- cameras are cheap. They report a dropped package or they report a stolen package, but either way they fucked up and they have to admit it. Reporting a dropped package would make you look less stupid and unscrupulous than reporting that you completely lost the package between the airport door and the aircraft hold.

we'd all stay home.

No, not necessarily sitting at home. But business people would definitely spend more time in their own conference rooms, not flying around just to sit in other people's conference rooms.
posted by pracowity at 8:49 AM on August 23, 2006