Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
  
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
  
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
  
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

 

[MaggieMay1948]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Happened to me on a trip to London. I received full reimbursement without mych hassle over there and nought a new suitcase in London. But I didn't travel Qantas. I try to avoid them and prefer Singapore.

 

[donandviv77]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Just proves that if anyone is dumb enough to pay $800 for a suitcase being used for travel by air or sea then they deserve what ever happens to their luggage. Me, I always buy cheap brands of luggage when travelling, I have nothing to prove about being able to purchase a suitcase probably made by the same company with a different name tag, and yet to experience a damaged bag-and I used to travel extensively when in the work force.

 

[Observer]

Betting that any politician travelling with a suit case won't have their bags damaged.

 

[Suzanne rose]

My daughter had her new luggage damaged in Spain , she received half the value back and it took months.
At the same time this happened they showed on A Current Affairs how baggage handlers were treating luggage and Spain was the worst , they were throwing them straight on the ground not caring

 

[Rita J]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Travel insurance should have covered the luggage

 

[Geronimo 2022]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Travel insuranc?

 

[kerrikennel]

Hard shell suitcases may seem a better option, but are more susceptible to damage. Go for a durable cloth/leather type and it will not break like this.

 

[kevinwoodtufftyke52@gmail]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Very poor customer support from Quantas, the airline has possession of those bags and therefore are responsible.

 

[Annna]

So many people today are hung up on labels (being seen in the the right gear/labels).

We've seen how bags are handled on many news reports.

Travellers, buy a no-name bag and have it plastic wrapped (to protect yourselves) and get on with your trip (shift the focus from self to mission), that is afterall the priority isn't it?

 

[NotNats]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

Easy fix - only take enough for the flight over (carry on bag size) - then buy cheap clothing while travel and when leaving donate it to that place. Problem fix.

 

[Macarj]

I would never buy a hard case, we travelled to USA, Canada and Alaska we had soft cases big ones a 30day trip in and out of hotels no damage what so ever but you could see they had been dropped and thrown around when we got home we just washed them and they were fine

 

[Pat T]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

After a few damaged suitcases I now buy cheap ones, add the cost of them to the holiday expenses, and toss in bin when I get home.

 

[Self-funded Retiree]

We had a problem with wet suitcases. Before boarding our flight to Sydney, our luggage was loaded on the tolley, on the very top, and then parked out on the apron in the pouring rain. We could see it from the waiting area. I advised a representative of Jet Star, and I was met with a shrug and told it "wasn't her responsable". My well-travelled material case was soaked as was most of the contents. Luckily for us my husband's case was partly under mine and didn't get the full impact of the downpour.

On arrival back in Sydney, I went to the office and told them about the lack of care and again met with a shrug. So I wrote to Jet Star and, as our clothing was wearable, I was told no claim - not even for dry cleaning.

Never again JET STAR!

 

[Lizard14]

I was compensated by Qantas with no problem at all when my suitcase was damaged. It's just inconvenient to have this happen.

 

[mannixf]

Travel nightmares are, unfortunately, a common experience for many of us. However, in this context, we are not referring to the challenges of dealing with a crying child on a long flight or a fellow passenger encroaching upon your personal space by reclining their seat excessively.

Instead, we turn our attention to a more daunting and tangible concern: the harsh treatment our suitcases endure as they make their way through the often chaotic and unforgiving airport environment.

Many travellers have experienced the frustration of suitcases arriving with missing wheels or showing scratches and dents from their journey.

View attachment 25141

A passenger flying with Qantas claims that her checked baggage was damaged during a flight from Hobart to Manila. However, when she approached a representative regarding the issue, she was informed that the airline was not responsible for the incurred damage. Source: Facebook

The possibilities for damage are endless as checked baggage navigates its complex path through the airport system.

Let's start our story with Lesley Rogers, a resident of Tasmania.

During her Qantas flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, her premium Delsey suitcase suffered a significant blow.

Lesley shared, ‘I put a perfectly good Delsey suitcase on my flight from Hobart to Manila via Sydney, and it came off with a hole smashed in the corner.’

This was no mere scratch or dent that could be disregarded; it was substantial damage that demanded immediate attention and, ultimately, a replacement. The cost of this incident amounted to nearly $800.

Upon reporting the incident to Qantas baggage services in Manila, she was met with a lacklustre response. The damages would not be covered by the airline.

She added, ‘The lady said it was not going to be covered by Qantas. I was leaving the next day for Europe, so I replaced it with the same brand, but a smaller suitcase which cost me almost $800.’

Frustrated yet resolute, Ms Rogers sparked a debate in a Qantas Facebook group.

The question arises: Who should bear the blame for this unfortunate incident? Should we attribute it to the suitcase manufacturer for producing an inferior product, or should the airline be responsible for rough handling?

View attachment 25143

Damaged luggage in airports can occur due to the complex and often chaotic nature of the baggage handling process, involving multiple conveyor belts, stacking, and transportation methods. Image by convertkit from unsplash

Not surprisingly, the post garnered many opinions. They flew in from various members, some sympathising with Ms Rogers; others siding with Qantas.

One member commented, ‘It sounds more like an inferior-made suitcase. I would be going back to the manufacturer of the suitcase.’

Another said, ‘Unfortunately, your bag is not wrapped in cotton wool, carefully carried to the plane and delicately placed inside. It travels on several conveyor belts, gets stacked in a bin, is driven to a plane and conveyored [sic] up to the plane. Bags can and will be damaged.’

A frustrating aspect of this suitcase saga is the near-impossible task of claiming compensation.

One member confessed, 'Your damaged suitcase is claimable but a near-impossible process. I'm still waiting even to get a return email from my case from April.'

The Qantas website presents a clear narrative that releases the airline from baggage mishaps.

However, the Montreal Convention of 1999 somewhat contradicts this revelation.

The international treaty outlines airline liabilities, implying the buck stops with them, provided the damage occurred while the baggage was in their custody.

But, of course, there's a catch. The 'gotcha' clause states that the airline is not liable if damage results from an inherent defect or bag quality.

Key Takeaways

• A Qantas passenger's complaint about a damaged suitcase has sparked a discussion about airlines' liability for baggage damage.
• The issue divided a Qantas Facebook group, with some members blaming the suitcase manufacturer instead of the airline, while others insisted on Qantas being responsible.
• Qantas directs passengers to lodge a report at the airport baggage services counter. The airline's regulation states they are not liable for wear and tear or inherent defects of baggage.
• The Montreal Convention of 1999 establishes airlines' liability in cases of delay, loss, or damage of baggage, but also indicates their non-liability if damage results from inherent defects or vices of baggage.

Members, what are your thoughts on the issue of liability for damaged luggage during air travel? Have you personally experienced any instances of damaged luggage during your travels? Share it with us, we’re all ears!

 

[mannixf]

I was compensated by Qantas with no problem at all when my suitcase was damaged. It's just inconvenient to have this happen.

 

[SGH]

Yep I learned my lesson with those hard (sic) shell cases, not worth the money you pay for them. Who on earth pays $800 not once, but twice for a suitcase, is this person a Rockstar? royalty? lets drop the pretences here. You can buy bags now that com with a warranty of up to five years, if that bag was so precious maybe it should have been left at home on display.