Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
The Montreal Convention does not apply to domestic flights
high likelihoodOn an intra-Member-State flight the carrier says the Convention is confined to international carriage, so only its own conditions of carriage apply.
What answers it
The premise is right and the conclusion is wrong. Art. 1 of Regulation 2027/97, as amended by Regulation 889/2002, extends the Convention rules to carriage by air within a single Member State, and Art. 3(1) makes the liability of a Community air carrier governed by all relevant provisions of the Convention. The 1,519 SDR ceiling applies to your domestic flight as a matter of directly applicable EU law.
Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, Art. 1 (as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002) — Art. 1
The limit is per bag, not per passenger
high likelihoodThe airline offers one limit per checked bag, or divides the limit between the bags on the ticket, so that a passenger who lost two bags is told each is worth half.
What answers it
Art. 22(2) fixes the limit "for each passenger". It is a single ceiling covering destruction, loss, damage AND delay of all of that passenger's baggage combined — one limit per passenger, however many bags. It is also a ceiling, not a tariff: below it, the passenger recovers proven loss.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 22(2) — Art. 22(2)
We apply depreciation to your items
high likelihoodThe airline applies a standard depreciation schedule — often 10–20% per year of age, or a flat percentage of purchase price — and pays a fraction of what replacement actually costs.
What answers it
The Convention says nothing about depreciation. Art. 17(2) makes the carrier liable for the damage sustained, and Art. 22(2) caps it; neither authorises a deduction schedule. Depreciation is the carrier's internal settlement policy, not law, and it is negotiable. Ask for the contractual or statutory basis for the schedule in writing — there is none — and claim the cost of replacing the items.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 17(2) — Art. 17(2)
You have not proved what was in the bag
high likelihoodThe airline pays only for items backed by an original purchase receipt and refuses the rest.
What answers it
Proof of loss is a question of evidence, not of a receipt rule. Bank and card statements, photographs, warranty registrations, insurance schedules and a signed inventory are all evidence a court will weigh. The Convention imposes no receipts-only standard, and requiring one for ordinary clothing would make the Art. 17(2) liability illusory.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 17(2) — Art. 17(2)
Here is a travel voucher instead
high likelihoodThe airline offers a flight voucher, loyalty miles or a goodwill credit rather than money, often expiring within a year.
What answers it
The Convention entitlement is to damages, payable in money. Art. 23(1) even prescribes how the SDR figure converts into national currency. A voucher is an offer to settle, and accepting it usually extinguishes the claim; there is no obligation to take one.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 23(1) — Art. 23(1)
The limit is 1,000 SDR — it says so in the Annex
medium likelihoodThe carrier quotes the passenger-information notice in the Annex to the Regulation, which still recites the original 1999 figures of 1,000 SDR for baggage.
What answers it
The Annex is an information notice that was never updated, not the operative limit. Art. 3(1) applies "all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability", and Art. 22(2) of the Convention is subject to the Art. 24 revision mechanism, under which ICAO raised the figure to 1,288 SDR from 28 December 2019 and to 1,519 SDR from 28 December 2024. The carrier is quoting a superseded number.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 24 — Art. 24
We already paid you EU261 compensation
medium likelihoodWhere the flight was also delayed or cancelled, the carrier treats the EU261 payment as discharging the baggage claim too.
What answers it
They are different losses. EU261 compensates the disruption of the journey; this compensates the baggage. Art. 12(1) of Regulation 261/2004 does allow EU261 compensation to be deducted from further damages arising out of the same facts, so expect an argument about overlap where you are claiming for the same expenses twice — but a lost suitcase is not a delayed arrival, and the carrier must identify the actual double recovery it says exists.
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Art. 12(1) — Art. 12(1)