Dave Noble

It doesn't matter who it is that you choose to deal with, both are liable ( see above ). The CAA is only recommending what it thinks is the best way to approach - the CAA does not write the regulation

With joint liability, QF will be liable regardless of who you choose to deal with and the airlines will likely deal with it internally

By not checking bags through, QF is limiting its liability solely to the delivery of bags at the end of the contracted journey

With a multiple itinerary QF A-B and AA B-C , at B if bags are collected , QF's responsibiliy and liability ends. The bags are then checked in for B-C and AA has sole liability for that.

If QF checks the bags from A-C via B, it has liability even once its part of the journey is over

BD1959

So QF assume contractual liability over the second PNR simply by tagging the bag through to the final destination?

The ticket (which forms no part of the second PNR) is surely the contracted document, not the bag-tag??

Regards,

BD

Dave Noble

Yes. It is liable for the baggage even though it is getting no revenue from the journey

BD1959

Interesting.

I'd have thought QF would be excluded by paragraph 3 of Section 1:

Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation,

Surely QF would argue that courtesy of two PNRs there are two operations??

Particularly - on the (lack of revenue for the second PNR) - that the first paragraph of that Section states:

This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. (my emphasis)

But then I'm no lawyer.

Regards,

BD

Dave Noble

By accepting the baggage for onwards travel, the originating carrier assumes liability

BD1959

Where in the Montreal Convention does it say that?

Specifically Article 40 restricts the operating (as opposed to contracting) carrier solely to the carriage it performs.

Regards,

BD

Dave Noble

Once the baggage is accepted, it is a single operation.

Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts

BD1959

But there is NO contract with the initiating carrier for the second PNR and moreover paragraph 2 of Article 36 states:

2. In the case of carriage of this nature (successive carriage), the passenger or any person entitled
to compensation in respect of him or her can take action only against the
carrier which performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay
occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has
assumed liability for the whole journey.


In my mind merely tagging the bag is not "express agreement" - but then again, I'm no lawyer.

Regards,

BD

Dave Noble

Read paragraph 3 ( as posted above )

Article 36 refers to passengers, cargo and baggage

paragraph 3 refers to cargo and baggage

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

QF is getting revenue for the journey. The passenger is choosing QF for the connecting segment (with profits to QF) rather than a competitor.

Dave Noble

which they may well do regardless

percysmith

Anyway. QF MEL was happy to check through for my separate PNR CX flight as of yesterday. And issue BP for my CX flight too.

Mwenenzi

As expected, as today is before 1st Sept

Thread title: Qantas - no checking of luggage separate itineraries from 1 Sep [some exceptions] .

percysmith

I know this has been asserted by the title of this thread. And Ausbt has quoted a Qantas spokesperson.

I'm not aware QF has published this directly in writing tho (c.f. CX Agent's notice 1 June 2016) so I thought a data point might be helpful.

perthite

Qantas agents notice:

http://www.qantas.com/agents/dyn/qf/info/201606/0621