The Ultimate Baggage Lost / Delayed / Stolen / Damaged Thread
Feb 14, 2010, 4:14 pm
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
What do you advise I do? Am I covered by the Montreal or Warsaw conventions? do i contact the singapore airlines office in Melbourne, or in Singapore? Do i need the replacement cost (including shipping) in my initial correspondence, or can i follow-up with a second letter once the company respond?
Feb 14, 2010, 5:51 pm
#77
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
so do i write to the local singapore airlines office here in melbourne, or HQ in singapore?
Feb 14, 2010, 6:21 pm
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
Feb 19, 2010, 8:15 pm
#79
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
I have heard back from them and theyre claiming, "We must inform you that, as per the Conditions of Carriage which are printed on electronic tickets, airlines do not compensate for valuable, fragile or perishable items which are sent as checked baggage."
So, i'd like you advice on what to do next, i've found out it will cost me 198 pounds (about $400 AUD) to replace the wooden cabinet.
Thanks
Noni
Mar 2, 2010, 5:44 pm
#80
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
Hi,
I have heard back from them and theyre claiming, "We must inform you that, as per the Conditions of Carriage which are printed on electronic tickets, airlines do not compensate for valuable, fragile or perishable items which are sent as checked baggage."
So, i'd like you advice on what to do next, i've found out it will cost me 198 pounds (about $400 AUD) to replace the wooden cabinet.
Thanks
Noni
I have heard back from them and theyre claiming, "We must inform you that, as per the Conditions of Carriage which are printed on electronic tickets, airlines do not compensate for valuable, fragile or perishable items which are sent as checked baggage."
So, i'd like you advice on what to do next, i've found out it will cost me 198 pounds (about $400 AUD) to replace the wooden cabinet.
Thanks
Noni
KVS are you able to offer any advice on the above??
really want to get this sorted ASAP
Mar 2, 2010, 5:51 pm
#81
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
"We have become aware of tariff provisions filed by several carriers that attempt, with respect to checked baggage, to exclude certain items, generally high-cost or fragile items such as electronics, cameras, jewelry or antiques, from liability for damage, delay, loss or theft. A typical provision found in carrier tariffs and disclosed on carrier websites states that the carrier does not assume liability for loss, damage, or delay of "certain specific items, including: . . . antiques, documents, electronic equipment, film, jewelry, keys, manuscripts, medication, money, paintings, photographs . . . ."
Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."
Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."
Mar 2, 2010, 6:07 pm
#82
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
From http://AirConsumer.DOT.gov/rules/webnotice_04012009.pdf
"We have become aware of tariff provisions filed by several carriers that attempt, with respect to checked baggage, to exclude certain items, generally high-cost or fragile items such as electronics, cameras, jewelry or antiques, from liability for damage, delay, loss or theft. A typical provision found in carrier tariffs and disclosed on carrier websites states that the carrier does not assume liability for loss, damage, or delay of "certain specific items, including: . . . antiques, documents, electronic equipment, film, jewelry, keys, manuscripts, medication, money, paintings, photographs . . . ."
Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."
Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."
Thanks again,
Noni
Mar 13, 2010, 12:13 am
#83
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
Left Laptop on board plane
I flew back on Jetstar back to Singapore , and realised that I had left my laptop on the aircraft when we were waiting to collect our luggage. I went to the office to enquire on how to claim back the laptop, and the office personnel told me that the aircraft had been locked up since it was their last flight. I was then told to make a report, and I was assured that they would inform the duty manager in charge of the first flight the next morning to have it checked and reported if they do find it.
I called them twice the next morning around 9 and 10am respectively, and was told that the duty manager hasn't called the lost and found office to update on the laptop, and since the flight has already taken off around 6plus am, I would need to give them more time for any status updates. It was after lunch when the office called me back to inform me that the duty manager has just called and informed that they could not find the laptop.
Would I have any claims against the carrier using any laws of bailment or under the Warsaw Convention. I know that the WC covers liability on carrier for checked in and for hand carry baggage. And further liability under WC is strict liability (as in I need not proof fault)...does this mean that I would be successful in my claim?
I called them twice the next morning around 9 and 10am respectively, and was told that the duty manager hasn't called the lost and found office to update on the laptop, and since the flight has already taken off around 6plus am, I would need to give them more time for any status updates. It was after lunch when the office called me back to inform me that the duty manager has just called and informed that they could not find the laptop.
Would I have any claims against the carrier using any laws of bailment or under the Warsaw Convention. I know that the WC covers liability on carrier for checked in and for hand carry baggage. And further liability under WC is strict liability (as in I need not proof fault)...does this mean that I would be successful in my claim?
Mar 18, 2010, 7:32 pm
#84
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
Some advice regarding my lost luggage.
Hello everyone,
I just have a couple of quick queries regarding my lost suitcase. First off, some background information.
I flew from Manchester Airport, UK to Karachi, Pakistan on Qatar Airways. There was a 6 hour transit in Doha, Qatar. My suitcase never reached Karachi and it is now officially classed as lost.
Now the situation is that when I filled in the Passenger Property Questionnaire, where you are supposed to list details of all the contents. The staff at Karachi Airport mislead me and told me that the value and contents of the baggage will not matter when settling the claim as it is based on weight rather than value. So I just listed basic items like socks, underwear, a couple of t-shirts and so on. Basically, so they would be able to identify the contents or whatever. It was in no way an accurate representation of the contents of the suitcase. Furthermore, the items I listed could not have accounted for the entire weight of the suitcase. Any reasonable person can see that there would be more things.
When I returned to the UK, I read up on the laws etc. and found out that the Montreal Convention would apply. I have receipts to make my claim and it is more than their original offer. They settled it by calculating it per kg under the Warsaw Convention. I am sure they are wrong and that they should in fact settle under the Montreal Convention. If I can provide them with documentary evidence i.e receipts they should reimburse me for the items after taking into account depreciation etc. There are also no items of high value...only clothes.
My questions are basically:
1. Does the fact that the Passenger Property Questionnaire which I filled in with items of low value and which was incomplete have a negative effect on my claim? I have receipts for items listed on there but I also have receipts for additional items which were not listed there. Is the Passenger Property Questionnaire the final deciding factor for settling the claim? Or will my receipts be the deciding factor?
2. So from the UK to Doha to Pakistan and back....this for certain means that the Montreal Convention applies right?
3. Qatar Airways is insisting that they are still giving me their original offer based on weight and currently do not seem prepared to accept my receipts and consider them in settling the claims. Can they do this considering that it appears to be a breach of the Montreal Convention? They say that since I signed and filled in the property questionnaire they are not bound to reimburse me for any additional items.
4. I am trying to negotiate with them. If they don't agree, I am prepared to initiate proceedings against them in the small claims court. Would I have a chance of this being successful?
I would appreciate if I could get a response to this post. I flew in December and it's now March. Dealing with them has been a total nightmare. If this doesn't settle amicably I am quite ready to resort to the courts. But obviously, it will depend on whether or not I have a chance of winning my claim.
Thank you everyone in advance. I will keep posting about any significant updates for everyone's benefit here.
I just have a couple of quick queries regarding my lost suitcase. First off, some background information.
I flew from Manchester Airport, UK to Karachi, Pakistan on Qatar Airways. There was a 6 hour transit in Doha, Qatar. My suitcase never reached Karachi and it is now officially classed as lost.
Now the situation is that when I filled in the Passenger Property Questionnaire, where you are supposed to list details of all the contents. The staff at Karachi Airport mislead me and told me that the value and contents of the baggage will not matter when settling the claim as it is based on weight rather than value. So I just listed basic items like socks, underwear, a couple of t-shirts and so on. Basically, so they would be able to identify the contents or whatever. It was in no way an accurate representation of the contents of the suitcase. Furthermore, the items I listed could not have accounted for the entire weight of the suitcase. Any reasonable person can see that there would be more things.
When I returned to the UK, I read up on the laws etc. and found out that the Montreal Convention would apply. I have receipts to make my claim and it is more than their original offer. They settled it by calculating it per kg under the Warsaw Convention. I am sure they are wrong and that they should in fact settle under the Montreal Convention. If I can provide them with documentary evidence i.e receipts they should reimburse me for the items after taking into account depreciation etc. There are also no items of high value...only clothes.
My questions are basically:
1. Does the fact that the Passenger Property Questionnaire which I filled in with items of low value and which was incomplete have a negative effect on my claim? I have receipts for items listed on there but I also have receipts for additional items which were not listed there. Is the Passenger Property Questionnaire the final deciding factor for settling the claim? Or will my receipts be the deciding factor?
2. So from the UK to Doha to Pakistan and back....this for certain means that the Montreal Convention applies right?
3. Qatar Airways is insisting that they are still giving me their original offer based on weight and currently do not seem prepared to accept my receipts and consider them in settling the claims. Can they do this considering that it appears to be a breach of the Montreal Convention? They say that since I signed and filled in the property questionnaire they are not bound to reimburse me for any additional items.
4. I am trying to negotiate with them. If they don't agree, I am prepared to initiate proceedings against them in the small claims court. Would I have a chance of this being successful?
I would appreciate if I could get a response to this post. I flew in December and it's now March. Dealing with them has been a total nightmare. If this doesn't settle amicably I am quite ready to resort to the courts. But obviously, it will depend on whether or not I have a chance of winning my claim.
Thank you everyone in advance. I will keep posting about any significant updates for everyone's benefit here.
Mar 22, 2010, 8:14 pm
#85
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
Emirates lost my baggage
I was flying From ADD to SFO VIA DBX and after arrival my baggage couldn't be found. I was at the baggage claim for almost three hrs. finally the agent gave me PIR form. Then the agents were calling me for about a month. After one month I received a call from SFO and was told as my baggage was declared lost and as they summit my information to NY on 10/16/09. After a week I called NY office and left message . Back in December I called and left another message. Again in January 2010 I called and left a message no Reply. Finally I went to SFO
office and ask one of the agent and was told to email them. A week ago I emailed them still I didn't get any response. Now I am really getting sick to the stomach and lost hope on this Airlines. Is there anything I can do before talking to a lawyer. Thank you for your response.
office and ask one of the agent and was told to email them. A week ago I emailed them still I didn't get any response. Now I am really getting sick to the stomach and lost hope on this Airlines. Is there anything I can do before talking to a lawyer. Thank you for your response.
Mar 30, 2010, 8:32 am
#86
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
I've just heard back from Singapore Airlines on the matter, as this was part of their reply:
"Since airlines are not liable for fragile, perishable or valuable items, as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to offer you 50% reimbursement of your claim"
would you say this is still against the montreal convention? and they should be reimbursing 100%?
Thanks
Noni
Mar 30, 2010, 2:27 pm
#87
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
My questions are basically:
1. Does the fact that the Passenger Property Questionnaire which I filled in with items of low value and which was incomplete have a negative effect on my claim? I have receipts for items listed on there but I also have receipts for additional items which were not listed there. Is the Passenger Property Questionnaire the final deciding factor for settling the claim? Or will my receipts be the deciding factor?
1. Does the fact that the Passenger Property Questionnaire which I filled in with items of low value and which was incomplete have a negative effect on my claim? I have receipts for items listed on there but I also have receipts for additional items which were not listed there. Is the Passenger Property Questionnaire the final deciding factor for settling the claim? Or will my receipts be the deciding factor?
3. Qatar Airways is insisting that they are still giving me their original offer based on weight and currently do not seem prepared to accept my receipts and consider them in settling the claims. Can they do this considering that it appears to be a breach of the Montreal Convention? They say that since I signed and filled in the property questionnaire they are not bound to reimburse me for any additional items.
Based on what you have described, you certainly do. However, this should not be considered legal advice.
Mar 30, 2010, 2:29 pm
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
Mar 30, 2010, 2:31 pm
#89
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 12,949
Hi KVS,
I've just heard back from Singapore Airlines on the matter, as this was part of their reply:
"Since airlines are not liable for fragile, perishable or valuable items, as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to offer you 50% reimbursement of your claim"
would you say this is still against the montreal convention? and they should be reimbursing 100%?
Thanks
Noni
I've just heard back from Singapore Airlines on the matter, as this was part of their reply:
"Since airlines are not liable for fragile, perishable or valuable items, as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to offer you 50% reimbursement of your claim"
would you say this is still against the montreal convention? and they should be reimbursing 100%?
Thanks
Noni
Mar 30, 2010, 6:59 pm
#90
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
Qatar Airways are unwilling to negotiate and are stating that they are unable to enhance their original offer. Therefore, I have emailed and telephoned the Airport Users Council so they can try to mediate a settlement. However, because of the backlog, they will take about 3 weeks to give a measured response. If they consider that my case is worth it, they will contact Qatar Airways.
I have told Qatar Airways to standby for contact by the AUC and that if their mediation fails to achieve a satisfactory result, then I will not hesitate to initiate legal proceedings via the Small Claims Track in the County Court.
Let's see how this culminates.
I do have one more question. I saw on http://www.montrealconvention.org/ that according to Article 31, I should have made a written complaint to the airline. However, I didn't do this...will the Passenger Property Questionnaire count as a complaint?