Common Airline Tactics to Deny Luggage Claims

Airlines employ various strategies to minimize luggage compensation payouts, from legitimate policy interpretations to questionable tactics that may violate passenger protection laws. Understanding these approaches and developing effective counter-strategies is essential for securing maximum compensation.

Tactic 1: The "Unreasonable Expense" Challenge

Airlines frequently challenge expense claims as "unreasonable" to reduce reimbursement obligations, particularly for clothing, toiletries, and other personal items purchased during baggage delays. They might claim that $200 spent on essential items over three days is excessive, or question whether certain purchases were truly necessary.

Airlines sometimes apply restrictive interpretations of "essential" items, claiming that anything beyond basic toiletries and one change of clothes is unreasonable. They may also question the cost of items, suggesting passengers should have purchased cheaper alternatives.

Counter-Strategy: Document the necessity of all purchases based on your specific travel circumstances. Business travelers need professional attire, while vacation travelers may need specific clothing for planned activities. Keep receipts showing reasonable prices for quality items, and be prepared to explain why each purchase was necessary given your situation.

Tactic 2: The "Proof of Ownership" Burden

Airlines often request extensive documentation proving ownership and value of lost items, particularly for expensive electronics, jewelry, or professional equipment. They may claim that without receipts or photos, passengers cannot prove they actually owned claimed items.

Some airlines request original purchase receipts for items that might be years old, knowing that most passengers don't maintain such detailed records. Others demand serial numbers, model numbers, or other specific details that passengers might not remember or document.

Counter-Strategy: Create detailed baggage inventories before traveling, including photos of contents and approximate values. While receipts help establish value, they're not always required under Montreal Convention standards. Provide reasonable estimates for typical travel items and focus on demonstrating the necessity and reasonableness of your claims.

Tactic 3: Time Limit Manipulation

Airlines sometimes claim that compensation requests were filed after applicable deadlines, even when passengers filed claims promptly. They may use different deadlines for different types of claims or apply deadlines retroactively to deny otherwise valid claims.

Some airlines create confusion about which deadlines apply to which types of claims, or fail to clearly communicate deadline requirements when passengers first report baggage problems. Others may claim they never received compensation requests that passengers submitted within required timeframes.

Counter-Strategy: Understand specific deadline requirements under applicable laws and airline policies. File all claims in writing with delivery confirmation to establish submission dates. Keep detailed records of all submissions and follow up promptly when airlines claim they haven't received your claims.

Tactic 4: The "Act of God" Defense

Airlines sometimes claim that baggage problems resulted from circumstances beyond their control, such as weather delays, security incidents, or other extraordinary circumstances that might limit their liability obligations.

While some genuine extraordinary circumstances can affect airline liability, airlines often overuse this defense for routine operational problems. Weather that affects flights doesn't necessarily excuse baggage handling failures, and security procedures don't eliminate airline responsibility for lost or damaged items.

Counter-Strategy: Challenge extraordinary circumstances claims with specific questions about how the claimed circumstances directly caused your baggage problems. Weather delays don't excuse baggage being sent to wrong destinations, and routine security procedures don't justify lost or damaged luggage.

Tactic 5: Settlement Offers Below Legal Entitlements

Airlines often offer quick settlement payments significantly below legal compensation limits, hoping passengers will accept immediate resolution rather than pursuing full entitlements through longer claims processes.

These offers might be presented as generous goodwill gestures or maximum available compensation, when they actually represent fractions of legal liability limits. Airlines may also offer travel vouchers or credits instead of cash compensation, providing less value and flexibility.

Counter-Strategy: Calculate your maximum compensation entitlement under applicable laws before considering any settlement offers. Politely decline offers below legal minimums and insist on full compensation as required by law. Remember that accepting settlement offers may waive your rights to additional compensation.