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 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 did not complain within 7 days
high likelihoodThe airline says the claim is barred because no written complaint reached it within 7 days of receiving damaged baggage, or 21 days of a delayed bag being delivered.
What answers it
Check three things before conceding. First, the limb: 7 days applies to damage, 21 days to delay, and total loss is non-delivery rather than damage, so Art. 31(2) does not bar a loss claim at all. Second, the trigger date: the delay clock runs from the date the bag was placed at your disposal, not from the flight. Third, the form: a Property Irregularity Report raised at the airport, and in most jurisdictions an email or the carrier's own web form, satisfies the Art. 31(3) writing requirement.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 31(2)–(4) — Art. 31(2)–(4)
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)
Those items should not have been checked
medium likelihoodThe airline points to its conditions of carriage excluding electronics, jewellery, cash, medication or fragile goods from checked baggage.
What answers it
Art. 26 makes null and void any contractual provision that relieves the carrier of liability or fixes a lower limit than the Convention. A conditions-of-carriage exclusion cannot cut below Art. 22(2). The carrier does have a genuine defence under Art. 17(2) for damage resulting from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage — but that is about the property failing of itself, not about the airline disliking what was inside it.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 26 — Art. 26
We took all reasonable measures
medium likelihoodFor a delay claim the carrier may plead the Art. 19 defence: that it and its agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible to take them.
What answers it
The burden is on the carrier and it is a demanding one — it must show measures actually taken, not a general assertion of good systems. Baggage mis-sortation inside the carrier's own or its handler's operation is the paradigm case where the defence fails, because the carrier controls the process. Ask it to identify, in writing, the measures it says it took in respect of your bag.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 19 — Art. 19
Our conditions of carriage limit us to less
medium likelihoodThe carrier points to a lower figure or a narrower head of loss in its own conditions of carriage or its tariff.
What answers it
Art. 26 makes null and void any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than the Convention. The contract can go above the Convention (Art. 25) but never below it.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 26 — Art. 26
You did not report it at the airport
medium likelihoodThe carrier says the claim fails because no Property Irregularity Report was raised before you left the baggage hall.
What answers it
Nothing in the Convention requires a PIR. Art. 31(1) makes receipt without complaint prima facie evidence that the baggage arrived in good condition — but that is a rebuttable presumption, not a bar, and it is rebutted by photographs, by the state of the bag, and by a prompt written complaint within the Art. 31(2) period.
Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 31(2)–(4) — Art. 31(2)–(4)