Connect with us

Business

British Airways Destroyed Our Guitar and Won’t Pay Up

Published

on

British Airways Destroyed Our Guitar and Won’t Pay Up

I’m a co-owner of Luaka Bop, a New York-based record label, and last June was accompanying the Staples Jr. Singers, a gospel group from Aberdeen, Miss., on a European tour. For a British Airways flight from London to Paris, three musicians were required to check their guitars, but only one instrument arrived in Paris with us. We filled out the forms and tried to impress upon the employee the importance of getting the guitars before the group’s show the next night. One of the two lost guitars did make it to Paris the next day, but British Airways couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver it, so our tour manager took a cab to the airport only to find it had closed. When the group returned to Britain by train, it was still down two guitars. We got one back a few shows later, and eventually found the other one at Heathrow Airport lost and found — with its neck snapped off and its case destroyed. We ended up with over $5,000 in expenses, which included renting guitars for a dozen shows and purchasing a guitar and case (both used) for Arceola Brown, the musician whose instrument was destroyed. We submitted most receipts with the original claim to British Airways on July 25, then added a few more on Aug. 7 and Sept. 11, for a total of $3,331. (We didn’t keep receipts for the rest.) But beyond receiving a case number, we never heard back, despite several email follow-ups. Can you help? Yale, New York City

If I could choose a tale to tell here, it would be the amazing one of how the Staples Jr. Singers recorded one album in 1975 that barely anyone paid attention to until decades later. Rereleased in 2022, the album received rave reviews and led to international tours for the group.

What a story. Alas, this space is devoted to issues far more mundane and familiar, like lost and destroyed luggage.

True, the lost luggage was cooler than most Samsonites: a Fender Telecaster that was recovered, and a Casio MIDI so thoroughly destroyed that I wonder if a baggage handler channeled Pete Townshend of the Who and smashed it to smithereens on the airport tarmac. The trouble you had getting reimbursed, however, is a wearily familiar tale in the Tripped Up inbox.

Along with photos of the Casio MIDI guitar, you sent me a frustrating timeline of your team’s efforts both to recover the guitars and later seek compensation for the rentals and the replacement for Mr. Brown’s guitar and case. (Sadly, Mr. Brown died on Nov. 16.)

Advertisement

I first intervened by writing to a British Airways spokeswoman in early November, and the airline quickly sent an apologetic letter to you offering reimbursement for the oddly exact and insufficient amount of 493.97 British pounds, or about $600. The carrier included a separate $250 voucher for future flights.

I intervened again, but on Jan. 7, the airline wrote back to you only to forward the original offer, an odd value much less than the claim.

I looked back to the receipts you sent me and remembered you submitted the receipts in three batches. The second and third batches totaled exactly $493.97.

The airline seems to have swapped currencies, which may be a sign of how carefully it was paying attention to your problem.

As for the first batch of receipts, it would seem they never made it through when you submitted them.

Advertisement

On Jan. 11, the carrier called you to ask you to upload the receipts again, which you did. I received a short statement on Jan. 15 — “We have apologized to the customers and are working with them directly to resolve their claim” — but you heard nothing further. So on Jan. 21, on my suggestion, you emailed your contact again. You said you were instructed to upload receipts again, which you did, and were told you would be reimbursed $3,941.

That’s an odd number — more than your receipts, less than your losses — but I think I can explain it, as the airline declined to do so or answer any of my other questions, including how the guitar was destroyed, why the airline didn’t deliver the guitar in Paris or why the receipts were not processed when you first sent them in July.

Here’s my best guess: The Montreal Convention, the international treaty that governs lost luggage (among other things) on most international flights, caps airline liability. That luggage cap, at the time of your flight was, about $1,700 per passenger, or $3,400 for the two musicians combined. But on Dec. 28, the value on damages for most international flights was raised to the equivalent of about $1,980 per passenger.

The airline appears to have applied the newer value to your losses, though it didn’t need to, and you’re ending up with more money than you were actually due, a small compensation for hassles endured.

For those flying domestically or between countries that haven’t signed the Montreal Convention, local or national laws prevail regarding lost, stolen or damaged luggage. (In the United States, the Transportation Department caps damages for lost, damaged or delayed bags at $3,800.)

Advertisement

But those numbers don’t mean much if you face seemingly unreasonable barriers when filing for reimbursements — such as the British Airways interface that you called cumbersome and that seemed to lose the receipts you painstakingly sent along. My inbox is full of tales of airlines that repeatedly ask for receipts that have already been submitted.

The multifaceted monthslong saga you endured with British Airways should be a reminder that travelers today need to do more than their fair share of the work to find their lost items. Adding AirTags or other Bluetooth trackers to checked luggage is a smart first step, so when the airlines claim they don’t know where your luggage is, you can tell them or even share its location, since the feature is now shareable with a third party.

Of course, you need to pack fragile items carefully (On its website, Fender offers guitar advice), and retain every scrap of paper starting when you check your bag. Then, if you need to file a claim, write down the name of every employee you interact with, take photos, record conversations when you can, and create copies of your documentation. The information will be critical when you file for reimbursements.

Most of the time, you won’t need it. But if you ever need to do battle with an airline, the documentation will come in handy. And if you have to write to Tripped Up, it will move you to the front of the line.

Advertisement

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending