1

According to the Montreal Convention, I can read the following:

Article 17 - 2.

The carrier liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier [...]

and

Article 22 - 2.

In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights (1,230€) for each passenger [...]

Now when I read a certain airline's Terms and Conditions, there is the following:

If the registered luggage was damaged during air transport, which has made a finding act before leaving the airport of destination and sent a written complaint under the provisions of the Montreal Convention art.31 points 1-4, the compensation will be given depending on the type of baggage, calculated the amount of damage and wear it.

Depreciation is calculated as follows:

In the first year of use: wear represents 20% of the purchase under the purchase receipt.

Starting with the second year, the depreciation amount is added each 10% per year until the ninth year of use

Doesn't this contradict Art. 22-2? If a baggage worth 100€ has been irreparably damaged, why should the airline not pay you 100€?

In that case, if I bought a ticket with this company, would I implicitly accept their T&C unlawfulness, therefore accept whatever refund they would give?

  • 1
    Is your question why they're allowed to reimburse for the depreciated cost, not the retail cost? – Michael Seifert Aug 9 '19 at 12:14
  • 1
    Article 22-2 outlines the maximum value for each bag and its contents. This doesn't mean that they need to pay you the replacement value or 1,000, whichever is lower. The airline is free to determine the approximate current value. For example lets say your baggage was a car instead of a bag. They are telling you how they arrive at its value, not its "new car equivalent" cost. The T&C's aren't unlawful, therefore you will have to accept the method of depreciation if you bought the ticket and followed through with the flight. – Ron Beyer Aug 9 '19 at 12:20
  • 2
    It sounds to me like the contradiction, if any, is with Article 17-2. They do have to pay you the amount of your loss or 1,000, whichever is lower. But as Ron explains, the amount of your loss is not generally determined by the replacement value, but more usually by the fair market value of the goods in their present condition. – Nate Eldredge Aug 9 '19 at 15:44
  • Thanks a lot, I thought so too. At the same time I wasn't entirely sure because the convention is actually meant to protect the consumer, and theoretically the airline could write "we will reimburse 1 €, full stop" and still not violate it. – Noldor130884 Aug 10 '19 at 6:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.