Montreal Convention Article 19 Explained: Compensation When EU261 Does Not Apply

Introduction: When EU261 Fails, the Montreal Convention Becomes Critical

Many air passengers believe that if EU Regulation 261/2004 does not apply to their flight, compensation is impossible. This is one of the most common — and most costly — misconceptions in air passenger rights.

In reality, the Montreal Convention of 1999, specifically Article 19, provides a powerful legal basis for claiming monetary compensation for flight delays even when EU261, UK261, or other fixed-sum regulations do not apply.

Airlines rarely explain this to passengers. On the contrary, they often rely on the assumption that “no EU261 = no compensation.” This article explains how Article 19 works, when it applies, what damages can be claimed, and why professional legal handling is essential.

What Is the Montreal Convention?

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty governing airline liability in international air transport. It applies to most international flights worldwide, including routes involving:

• Non-EU departures and arrivals

• Long-haul intercontinental flights

• Connections outside Europe

• Airlines based outside the EU

Unlike EU261, the Montreal Convention does not offer automatic fixed compensation. Instead, it focuses on actual damage caused by delay, cancellation, or disruption.

What Does Article 19 Cover?

Article 19 of the Montreal Convention states that an airline is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of passengers, baggage, or cargo — unless the airline proves it took all reasonable measures to avoid the damage.

This means compensation may be available for:

• Long arrival delays

• Missed connections

• Overnight airport stays

• Forced rebooking leading to late arrival

• Missed business meetings or workdays

• Additional accommodation, meals, or transport

• Stress, exhaustion, and time loss (when legally substantiated)

Crucially, Article 19 applies even when no fixed compensation regime exists.

When Does the Montreal Convention Apply?

The Montreal Convention applies when:

• The flight is international

• Both departure and destination countries are signatories

• EU261 or other fixed-sum regimes do not apply

• The delay caused measurable damage

Typical scenarios include:

• Non-EU → Non-EU flights

• Flights departing from non-EU countries to non-EU destinations

• Long-haul routes operated by non-EU airlines

• Multi-segment itineraries with disruptions outside Europe

How Is Compensation Calculated Under Article 19?

Unlike EU261, there is no flat-rate payment.

Compensation is based on:

• The nature of the damage

• Causal link between delay and loss

• Documentation and legal substantiation

Under the Montreal Convention, passenger delay claims are capped at 4,694 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) per passenger (approx. €5,500–€6,000 depending on exchange rate).

However, airlines almost never pay voluntarily. Claims must be:

• Legally framed

• Properly quantified

• Supported by evidence

• Presented under correct jurisdiction

This is where most self-filed claims fail.

Why Airlines Reject Article 19 Claims

Airlines commonly reject Montreal Convention claims by stating:

• “No fixed compensation applies”

• “Delay was unavoidable”

• “Extraordinary circumstances”

• “No proven damage”

• “Insufficient documentation”

In practice, many of these refusals are legally weak. Airlines rely on the fact that passengers lack legal expertise to challenge them.

EU261 vs Montreal Convention: Key Differences

Both frameworks can even apply in parallel in certain cases — a nuance airlines never explain.

Why Professional Handling Is Essential

Article 19 claims require:

• Legal damage assessment

• Strategic jurisdiction choice

• Airline liability analysis

• Correct limitation period handling

• Formal legal correspondence

This is why MySkyHelp focuses heavily on Montreal Convention claims — especially complex international cases that airlines hope passengers will abandon.

Why Passengers Should Not Contact Airlines Directly

When passengers contact airlines themselves:

• Claims are often framed incorrectly

• Legal arguments are incomplete

• Airlines lock in a rejection early

• Evidence is mishandled

Once a claim is mishandled, recovery becomes significantly harder.

MySkyHelp intervenes before irreversible mistakes are made.

When to Use Montreal Convention Claims Strategically

Article 19 is especially effective when:

• EU261 is inapplicable or disputed

• Flights involve non-EU carriers

• Long-haul disruptions caused financial or professional loss

• Airlines hide behind jurisdictional ambiguity

Claim Your Compensation With Professionals

If your flight was delayed, cancelled, or disrupted and the airline claims that “no compensation applies,” the Montreal Convention may still provide a strong legal basis.

Check compensation

Final Thought

The Montreal Convention is not a fallback — it is a core legal instrument in international aviation law. Passengers who understand this (or work with professionals who do) recover compensation that airlines routinely deny.

In the next article, we will break down EU Regulation 261/2004 in detail — when fixed compensation applies, when airlines must pay €250–€600, and the most common tactics airlines use to wrongly reject valid EU261 claims.