Here it is, at last. It’s not what we want, but it’s a small step forward and we can lobby now to have it strengthened.
“Musical instruments – Musicians often do not know in advance under which conditions fragile and often very expensive instruments will be taken on board. Under the proposal, the air carriers must accept smaller instruments into the passenger cabin and must clearly indicate the terms and conditions for the transport of larger instruments in the cargo hold.”
“Strengthened enforcement for baggage rules and specific rules for mobility equipment and music instruments: National authorities will be responsible for the enforcement of compensation rules for mishandled baggage and the new rules on the transport of musical instruments make sure that their carriage is not refused on other grounds than safety or technical specificities of the aircraft.”
Many thanks, Norman – I am taking the liberty of posting your information on the forum of our European Association of Artist Managers – - members have recently had terrible experiences with instrument transportation and your news is most encouraging.
Now if we can stop officials from seizing expensive instruments at customs inspection. The idiots in the US are considering “passports” for instruments. One more unnecessary deterrent and annoyance.
The description of the amended regulation still leaves undefined or unchanged many of its key words and phrases, such as the meaning of “smaller”- e.g., is Mr. Cello an outsized or “smaller” instrument? As for, “safety or technical specificities of the aircraft”, in the past, that has often been the reason cited by those carriers with travel policies denying seating for cellos. And carrier liability? The notice states: “Under International conventions and EU Law, carriers are liable for passengers and their luggage. In case of death, injury and baggage problems and in some cases of delay, passengers may be entitled to compensation to be determined according to the damage they suffered. Such compensation can be limited depending on the applicable law.” The hitch is: ‘such compensation can be limited depending on the applicable law’ (i.e., what is applicable law? it’s the law that limits such compensation!)
So, as the post above has so succinctly suggested, it seems that while there is some recognition of the problem, there is not yet any clear and definable solution. It may take some concerted lobbying on the size issue, and also as to where a cello may be strapped down- e.g., bulkhead only? or also oversized seats? or any seat?- or, whether it may be stored in a coat closet. This may take documentation and testimony from one or more transportation safety experts, rule-making bodies being what they are. In the next stage of negotiations with the EU this could require some coordination between the orchestras (including organization’s trustees that are influential in the world of high finance and corporate power- and it wouldn’t hurt to find one or more that are also upper level managers or directors of an airline carrier), managers and agents, and musicians’ unions (even if they have become toothless), and petitions and letters- lots of them- (something the internet, and this site, especially, is good at) and it would likely need a good lobbying and/or law firm. So, with experts, supportive organizations and advocates the dollars could be very substantial.
Re: the “terms and conditions for transport of larger instruments in the cargo hold”, that will be one to fight over, and again, it could get expensive.
As for compensation? Likely forget it for an expensive instrument, as the liability would almost certainly be considered too high by and for the carrier, even if it were spread over the passenger population. Unless the carriers roll over and play dead, they would lobby for applicable law to continue to cap the liability- so, for the player it would be every man (or woman) for his or herself – i.e., rely on one’s own private instrument policy.
Ultimately, what’s the message? To survive and protect possessions of value is not an inexpensive proposition, even if, too often, life is cheap. So, if you’re a struggling musician whose equity is tied up in your instrument, don’t sell the cab.
(Caveat: until one consults the actual EU regulations (and regulation history, etc.)- and that might require a legal consultation to understand the meaning of the EU cardinals- everything must be read with a grain of salt, especially since it is based on the language of the EU issued notice, not the regulations, even though there is likely no difference.)
It seems to me that instrument passports may solve the problems at Customs, though it is doubtful whether Frankfurt Airport would observe US rules and regulations. It would have to be internationally agreed. But if the regulators did the grunt work, one more piece of paperwork for a musician (or his/her manager) could reduce a lot of grief.
Wouldn’t hold out much hope for cellos being considered small. They are probably thinking things that will go on the overheads or under the seats. Worry about violas.
Ed is absolutely right: The definition of small instrument key, as is the implementation of any rules in particular states. (So we’re going to work on this…)