Can the Montréal Convention Apply to IRROPS?

[ChrisMars]

Presumably you could’ve booked your own flight to Sydney in business then just bill Malaysia for the cost of the ticket. You’d also earn status credits and points on this award ticket. Remember Malaysia is on the hook for up to $7,000 USD in damages when they cause disruptions like this under the Montreal Convention

Judging by the amount of time you mention the montreal convention in this forum, one can only assume you are an expert on this mater. Would you mind telling us your personal experience using it with airlines to get a favorable outcome?
Give us details, i.e. which category of the convention, which airline, did you have to start some sort of formal/legal action, or did you just mention it while discussing with an airline representative? Also, for my curiosity, can it be used on passengers too, i.e. when queing in a lounge?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Judging by the amount of time you mention the montreal convention in this forum, one can only assume you are an expert on this mater. Would you mind telling us your personal experience using it with airlines to get a favorable outcome?
Give us details, i.e. which category of the convention, which airline, did you have to start some sort of formal/legal action, or did you just mention it while discussing with an airline representative? Also, for my curiosity, can it be used on passengers too, i.e. when queing in a lounge?

I have been fortunate enough to not need to use the convention in travel as airlines have generally done the right thing during irregular operations. But just because I personally haven’t used it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist and cannot be used by international travellers. The point I’m trying to make here is that travellers believe (incorrectly might I add) that they are at the mercy of the airline when disruptions occur. When in truth it is the passenger who holds most of the power by way of consumer law and protections be it EU261 and Canada’s APPR to more broad legislation like Montreal Convention. Certainly I was happy last year when Qantas delayed my Singapore to Sydney flight by 14 hours as that was an easy €600 entitlement under EU261

 

[ChrisMars]

I have been fortunate enough to not need to use the convention in travel as airlines have generally done the right thing during irregular operations. But just because I personally haven’t used it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist and cannot be used by international travellers. The point I’m trying to make here is that travellers believe (incorrectly might I add) that they are at the mercy of the airline when disruptions occur. When in truth it is the passenger who holds most of the power by way of consumer law and protections be it EU261 and Canada’s APPR to more broad legislation like Montreal Convention. Certainly I was happy last year when Qantas delayed my Singapore to Sydney flight by 14 hours as that was an easy €600 entitlement under EU261

EU261 is pretty easy and reasonably well understood by passengers. It is regularly mentioned on this forum. Managing IROPS requires a bit more knowledge, but experienced traveller would typically manage. It's been mentioned several time in many threads, and I personally got familiar with the IATA IROPS "Guidance document for Airline" pdf to understand how to get the best outcome when IROPS occurs. I recommend anyone to read it, it help.

I don't recall the Montreal Convention being mentioned / used successfully in this forum. I don't read everything, but I would have expected seeing some sample of success in my few years of following this forum. You seem to champion this convention, and trust me, I want to believe it's an effective tool for travellers, but I am yet to see when / how this is being used effectively. Otherwise it's just noise for people like me, and worse, dangerously confusing for other that take your advice too literally.

 

[Warragul]

personally got familiar with the IATA IROPS "Guidance document for Airline" pdf to understand how to get the best outcome when IROPS occurs. I recommend anyone to read it, it help.

Good advice, need to remember that is guidance not a standard, meaning it is not enforceable if push comes to shove. Standards aren't either if an exception has been registered.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

EU261 is pretty easy and reasonably well understood by passengers. It is regularly mentioned on this forum. Managing IROPS requires a bit more knowledge, but experienced traveller would typically manage. It's been mentioned several time in many threads, and I personally got familiar with the IATA IROPS "Guidance document for Airline" pdf to understand how to get the best outcome when IROPS occurs. I recommend anyone to read it, it help.

Thanks for sharing. It's good to see what IATA suggest its member airlines do in the case of disruptions. I suppose one of the challenges of these regulations is that it is difficult to enforce. Whereas in the case of the Montreal Convention that is a matter of law and one that has been passed by most countries (including Australia) whenever an international itinerary is involved.

I don't recall the Montreal Convention being mentioned / used successfully in this forum. I don't read everything, but I would have expected seeing some sample of success in my few years of following this forum.

I think the reason you don't hear about it as much is first not that many people realize that this law exists (contrast this with EU261 where there is a legal obligation that airlines notify passengers of their rights and entitlements under the law). The other challenge is that as a matter of law, you may have to go to courts to get your rights enforced whereas with things like EU261, it's more automatic and black-and-white. Even if an airline were to incorrectly deny a claim, there is process that travellers can use to cause the claim to go under review, with the airline being assessed a big penalty for wrongly denying a claim.

You seem to champion this convention, and trust me, I want to believe it's an effective tool for travellers, but I am yet to see when / how this is being used effectively. Otherwise it's just noise for people like me, and worse, dangerously confusing for other that take your advice too literally.

You are correct that it is not used as much here in Australia. I think part of the reason is the time and cost associated with applying the law. Usually when things like the Montreal Convention are invoked we are dealing with bodily injury, however, again Article 19 provides for reimbursement of delayed baggage and disruptions of travel caused by the airline. Perhaps it is because Australia is a less litigious country than say Brazil (which by the way account for nearly 99% of all aviation lawsuits filed around the world) or the United States. But just because Aussies aren't enforcing their rights under the law doesn't mean they don't have those rights.

-RooFlyer88

 

[SydneySwan]

So @kangarooflyer88 have you actually used the Montreal Convention yourself in a claim? If so did you succeed?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

So @kangarooflyer88 have you actually used the Montreal Convention yourself in a claim? If so did you succeed?

Asked already:

Judging by the amount of time you mention the montreal convention in this forum, one can only assume you are an expert on this mater. Would you mind telling us your personal experience using it with airlines to get a favorable outcome?
Give us details, i.e. which category of the convention, which airline, did you have to start some sort of formal/legal action, or did you just mention it while discussing with an airline representative? Also, for my curiosity, can it be used on passengers too, i.e. when queing in a lounge?

And answered:

I have been fortunate enough to not need to use the convention in travel as airlines have generally done the right thing during irregular operations. But just because I personally haven’t used it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist and cannot be used by international travellers. The point I’m trying to make here is that travellers believe (incorrectly might I add) that they are at the mercy of the airline when disruptions occur. When in truth it is the passenger who holds most of the power by way of consumer law and protections be it EU261 and Canada’s APPR to more broad legislation like Montreal Convention. Certainly I was happy last year when Qantas delayed my Singapore to Sydney flight by 14 hours as that was an easy €600 entitlement under EU261

 

[PineappleSkip]

An ordinary citizen doesn't go to court and sue for breach of an international convention. That is just an agreement among countries that they will rule in accord with the convention (There are about 60 countries that haven't ratified it). In Australia the enabling legislation is in amendments to the Federal Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959 - see Part 1A which came into effect in 2009.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

An ordinary citizen doesn't go to court and sue for breach of an international convention. That is just an agreement among countries that they will rule in accord with the convention (There are about 60 countries that haven't ratified it). In Australia the enabling legislation is in amendments to the Federal Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959 - see Part 1A which came into effect in 2009.

It’s Australian law. Yes, it is an international treaty but it has the same force of law in Australia as any other law such as unfair dismissal under Fair Work Regulations. Now again, maybe it’s an Aussie thing not to take businesses to court when they are wronged, but in a good chunk of the world like the U.S. and Canada it’s actually quite common. And the legal system over there has realized that justice should be open for all, not just companies that can afford to hire high powered lawyers. This is why they have venues like small claims court to pursue these matters in an economical and efficient manner

 

[RooFlyer]

Now again, maybe it’s an Aussie thing not to take businesses to court when they are wronged, but in a good chunk of the world like the U.S. and Canada it’s actually quite common.

And praise be we don't ever go down that route.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem with the Momtral Convention is that if the airline doesn’t play ball, you’re going to have to sue them. And I believe that is in the Federal Court in Australia. VCAT and NCAT and similar have said they don’t have jurisdiction to hear cases, at least under the ‘no lawyers’ provisions.

So the cost, and the real possibility you might not win are likely to be a deterrent. There’s also a pretty big get out clause under montreal for things like costs of delays. The airline just has to prove it took reasonable measure to avoid its delay (or something similar).

Bodily injury is different… with a two-tier approach to da,ages under 128k SDRs, and amounts over that.

The beauty of EU/UK261, and similar schemes in the US and Canadia is that it is consumer protection law, with bodies set up to enable easy and rapid claims, at little or no cost to the consumer.

The UK and EU of course are much stronger than the Canadian counterpart, which allows airlines to claim maintained issues that arise at the gate as a valid excuse for paying compensation.

So yes, you could buy yourself a separate ticket under Montreal if your flight is delayed. You’d have the outlay to cover the cost of the replacement ticket, then habe to claim for the airline, which would likely reject the claim, then have to engage a lawyer, then have to wait for the court date, then have the stress of whether or not you’ll win. And then the possibility you might not win. And have to pay costs.

Your replacement ticket could end up costing you thousands of dollars.

Either way you need deep pockets. Money tied up for replacement tickets and the engagement of lawyers while you wait to have your claim hear. Or losing the case.

Could we change the law so that VCAT/NCAT etc have jurisdiction to hear cases brought under Montreal? With the associated removal of lawyers?

 

[Quickstatus]

The airline just has to prove it took reasonable measure to avoid its delay (or something similar).

Yes, the get out of jail free clause:

Article 19 — DelayThe carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage orcargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.

 

[RooFlyer]

Could we change the law so that VCAT/NCAT etc have jurisdiction to hear cases brought under Montreal? With the associated removal of lawyers?

In that case, it wouldn't just be 'Montreal'. Would probably then be any international treaty/convention ratified by Australia. Human rights at VCAT/NCAT?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

In that case, it wouldn't just be 'Montreal'. Would probably then be any international treaty/convention ratified by Australia. Human rights at VCAT/NCAT?

Well I suppose it could. But there are some pretty big and contentious issues dealt with under international law and treaties. And a lot of those would be of importance to big companies and governments at a national level.

The montreal convention - or potentially just the bits about consumer protection and consumer rights - would make sense to carve out, if possible. Those aren’t issues holding governments to account for example, but are rights for an individual.

 

[Quickstatus]

Could we change the law so that VCAT/NCAT etc have jurisdiction to hear cases brought under Montreal? With the associated removal of lawyers?

It seems that even Judges have difficulty reconciling MC99 and related domestic legislation, however, it appears that the Civil Liability act (NSW) 2002 governs assessment of damages under MC99 claims (if the claim is brought before NSW jurisdiction)