This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

differences between montreal convention and Warsaw convention. Discuss fully

What are we? Your slave? 202.51.31.186 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reads more like a sales pitch than a wikipedia article, and as such does not have a neutral POV, flagging as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.12.102 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.iata.org/policy/pages/mc99.aspx the limit is 113,100 drawing rights. Could you correct the article therefore ? --Robin of locksley (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question is perhaps one of the most heavily litigated issues relating to the Montreal Convention. The European Court of Justice interprets the Convention as allowing "non-material damages."^[1] This has been followed in Europe, and in Quebec in Canada.^[2] On the other hand, there are authorities that attempted to interpret the Montreal Convention based case law involving its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, as precluding "non-material" or "general" damages. So, this is a very complex question that even courts have been able to agree among each other.

Rewriting the section in a concise and clear way is likely beyond my skills, but I would be happy to provide input and many additional references to provide a neutral view of the question. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this out for being part of Lost Baggage as the problems tend to be distinct. Lost luggage tends to be physically lost (while some damage does occur), but for medical equipment, particularly wheelchairs, the problems tend to be inappropriate stowage in the hold resulting in serious damage, rather than the equipment going missing. It's sufficient a problem than many wheelchair insurance policies refuse to cover damage suffered in an aircraft hold.

I've also expanded the discussion of the issue slightly to give some scope of the problem. Even a basic individually fitted manual chair, which most long term users need, costs about twice the maximum compensation (my relatively basic chair would cost c£3000 to replace, 1,131SDR is about £1200), and three months to build that replacement is fairly typical. Power chairs can easily hit five figures and cost more than a new car. For many disabled people not using an appropriately fitted chair is actively dangerous, so there's a real issue around the speed of replacement.

82.24.113.243 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]