Montreal Convention Time Limits: How Long You Have to Claim

Montreal Convention claim time limit rules involve two distinct clocks. Article 31 sets short notice periods (7 days for damage, 21 days for delay or lost bag) that the airline can rely on as a procedural defence if missed. Article 35 sets the absolute 2-year time limit on bringing a court action, with no extensions. The two clocks run independently and have different consequences. Missing the Article 31 notice gives the airline a procedural defence (claim still possible but harder). Missing the Article 35 limit voids the claim entirely. The Montreal Convention treats both as strict and courts have rarely allowed exceptions.

Article 31 is short. Article 35 is absolute. File the notice immediately and track the 2-year court action deadline from the moment of arrival or scheduled arrival.

• ›

  Damaged baggage: written complaint within 7 days from receipt of the bag. Clock starts when the airline returns the bag to you, not when you discover the damage.

• ›

  Delayed baggage: written complaint within 21 days from the date the bag was placed at the disposal of the passenger.

• ›

  Lost baggage: written complaint within 21 days from the date the bag should have been delivered (typically when the airline officially declares the bag lost after 21 to 35 days of non-recovery).

• ›

  Documented loss for delay (Article 19): not strictly subject to Article 31, but courts often expect written notice as soon as practicable, ideally within 21 days.

• ›

  Effect of missed notice: the airline can plead the missed notice as a procedural defence. The claim is not automatically void but the burden of proof shifts heavily to the passenger.

See baggage claim deadline don't miss it and delayed baggage 24 hour and 72 hour rules.

Article 35 sets a 2-year time limit on bringing court action, running from: the date of arrival at the destination, or the date the aircraft should have arrived, or the date on which the carriage stopped. The clock is absolute. Courts in US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, and most other state parties have consistently held that Article 35 is not subject to tolling, equitable extension, or estoppel arguments. Missing the deadline voids the claim entirely. Track the deadline from the moment of arrival or scheduled arrival, not from the moment of dispute or denial.

• ›

  Damaged baggage Article 31: clock starts when the bag is returned to you (typically at the carousel or at the baggage office).

• ›

  Delayed baggage Article 31: clock starts when the airline places the delayed bag at your disposal (delivers to your address or notifies you to collect).

• ›

  Lost baggage Article 31: clock starts when the bag should have been delivered. Most courts interpret this as the date of arrival of the flight, not the date the airline officially declares the bag lost.

• ›

  Article 35 (court action): clock starts on the date of arrival, scheduled arrival, or carriage stoppage, whichever is latest. For lost bag where carriage 'stopped' is the practical date.

Article 31 requires the notice to be in writing and given to the carrier. Practical interpretations across jurisdictions: the PIR (Property Irregularity Report) filed at the airport baggage office counts as written notice for baggage claims because it is the airline's own form. Email to the airline's customer service address counts. Certified mail to the airline's principal place of business counts. Verbal notice does not. Social media DMs typically do not because they are not addressed to a designated claims handler. The notice should reference the booking, flight, date, and disruption with enough specificity that the airline can identify the claim.

Article 35 is strict but not absolutely without exception. Courts have allowed tolling in narrow cases of: airline fraud or active concealment of facts that would have triggered the claim, passenger incapacity (medical emergency preventing filing), or carrier acknowledgement of the claim that the carrier later attempts to disclaim. These exceptions are rare and require clear evidence. Do not rely on tolling. File before the deadline. For Article 31, missed notice can sometimes be excused if the carrier had actual knowledge of the disruption (most courts treat the PIR or claim form as effective notice even if not formally written).

Do not rely on tolling exceptions. They are rare, fact-specific, and unpredictable. File before the deadline and avoid the question entirely.

1. 1

   Stop trying to negotiate with the airline directly. Switch to formal escalation immediately.

2. 2

   Send a final written demand citing the deadline by name. Some airlines settle to avoid litigation.

3. 3

   File a small claims court action in your state of residence (if the airline operates services there) or in the destination jurisdiction.

4. 4

   Filing the court action 'tolls' the airline's defence, even if the case is later dismissed for venue or settled out of court.

5. 5

   If the claim is large (USD 10,000-plus), consider engaging a maritime or aviation law specialist. Most operate on contingency for clear cases.

6. 6

   Do not let the deadline pass while waiting for airline response. Filing tolls. Negotiating does not.

Time limits under Montreal Convention are independent of EU261 and US DOT timelines. EU261 has a separate national time limit (typically 2 to 6 years depending on member state). US DOT has no formal limit but practical 1-year window for refund claims. Filing under one framework does not extend the limit under another. Track each clock separately and file each claim within its own deadline. See EU261 claim old flights time limit and Montreal Convention vs EU261: which pays more.

For the broader baggage rights picture, see the airline lost baggage compensation pillar. For US rights, see the US DOT pillar.