When a Family Member Becomes “Baggage” in Aviation Law
For many passengers, a dog or cat travelling with them is not luggage. It is a family member.
Aviation law, however, can produce a very different legal classification.
Imagine that a passenger travels from Istanbul to Paris with a dog. The airline accepts the animal at check-in, places it in an approved container and transfers it to the aircraft hold. After landing, the passenger waits at the designated collection point—but the dog never arrives.
Or consider a more serious scenario: the animal is returned alive but suffering from heat exposure, physical trauma or respiratory distress. In another case, the carrier opens the container incorrectly during ground handling and the animal escapes onto the apron. In the worst scenario, the animal dies while it is under the airline’s control.
Who is legally responsible?
Can the airline simply rely on a contractual clause stating that animals are transported “at the owner’s risk”?
Can the passenger claim compensation for emotional distress?
Does it matter whether the animal travelled in the cabin, as checked baggage in the aircraft hold, or as air cargo?
And perhaps the most uncomfortable question:
Can international aviation law legally treat a living animal in substantially the same way as a suitcase?
Following an important 2025 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the answer—at least for the purposes of the Montreal Convention—may indeed be yes.
For passengers travelling to or from Türkiye, the answer requires a combined examination of the Turkish Civil Aviation Law No. 2920, the Montreal Convention 1999, airline conditions of carriage and international live-animal transportation standards.
The First Legal Question: Cabin, Hold or Cargo?
Not every animal transported by an airline travels under the same legal structure.
A small dog or cat may be accepted inside the passenger cabin as PETC — Pet in Cabin.
A larger pet travelling together with its owner may be transported in the aircraft hold as AVIH — Animal in Hold.
An animal may also travel independently through the airline’s cargo operation under an air waybill.
The distinction is far more important than terminology.
Turkish civil aviation guidance distinguishes animals carried in the hold as checked baggage from animals transported through the cargo channel. SHGM material expressly describes AVIH animals accompanying a passenger as checked baggage, while animals transported separately through cargo channels are handled under live-animal cargo rules.
This classification may determine:
the legal basis of liability, the burden of proof and, most importantly, the maximum amount of compensation available.
International Flights and the Montreal Convention
The central international instrument governing airline liability is the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 1999, commonly known as the Montreal Convention or MC99.
Türkiye signed the Convention in 1999 and it became effective for Türkiye on 26 March 2011.
The Convention creates a uniform liability system for international carriage involving passengers, baggage and cargo.
This becomes especially important in pet transportation because the legal characterisation of the animal may place a claim within either the baggage regime or the cargo regime.
The difference can be financially substantial.
The 2025 Iberia Case: Is a Dog Legally “Baggage”?
A remarkable aviation-law dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2025.
The case arose from a journey from Buenos Aires to Barcelona.
A passenger was travelling with her dog. Because of the animal’s size and weight, the dog was checked in for transportation in the aircraft hold inside a special container.
Before boarding, the dog escaped from the container while under the transportation process and disappeared. It was never recovered.
The passenger claimed compensation, including non-material damage arising from the emotional consequences of losing the animal.
The central legal question became unexpectedly fundamental:
Is a pet excluded from the meaning of “baggage” under Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the Montreal Convention because it is a living and sentient animal?
In its judgment of 16 October 2025 in Case C-218/24, Felicísima v Iberia, the Court held that pets are not excluded from the concept of baggage for the purposes of those provisions.
The Court acknowledged that animal welfare is recognised as an objective of general interest within European Union law. Nevertheless, it concluded that this did not prevent a pet from falling within the Montreal Convention’s baggage liability regime when transported as such.
The decision is particularly important because the Court also confirmed that the Convention’s baggage compensation ceiling can encompass both material and non-material damage.
The judgment is not formally binding on Turkish courts in the same manner as it is within the EU judicial system. Nevertheless, because it interprets the same Montreal Convention to which Türkiye is a party, it is highly relevant comparative authority in any future Turkish dispute concerning the international carriage of pets.
What Happens When a Pet Travels as Checked Baggage?
Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention establishes carrier liability for the destruction, loss of or damage to checked baggage where the event causing the damage occurred while the baggage was on board the aircraft or otherwise within the carrier’s charge.
This creates a relatively strong position for the passenger.
Suppose a dog is properly checked in at Istanbul Airport and handed over to airline personnel.
From that point onwards, the animal may pass through several stages:
check-in acceptance, ground handling, loading, the aircraft hold, transfer operations, unloading and delivery.
If the animal disappears, is physically injured or dies during the period in which it is under the carrier’s control, the factual focus will be on what happened during that chain of custody.
Turkish Civil Aviation Law adopts a similar concept for registered baggage and cargo. Article 121 provides that the carrier is responsible where registered baggage or cargo is lost or damaged and the event occurs during carriage by air. The relevant period includes the time during which the baggage or cargo remains in the carrier’s custody at an airport, on the aircraft or, in specified circumstances, elsewhere following an off-airport landing.
For pet disputes, establishing when the airline took custody and when that custody ended can therefore become one of the decisive evidentiary questions.
What If the Pet Travels in the Cabin?
The legal analysis becomes different where a dog or cat remains in the passenger cabin.
Under the Montreal Convention, liability for unchecked baggage or personal items generally requires proof that the damage resulted from the fault of the carrier or its servants or agents. ICAO explains this distinction between checked and carry-on baggage within the Article 17 liability system.
That distinction makes practical sense.
A cat travelling under the passenger’s seat usually remains substantially within the owner’s physical supervision.
If the passenger opens the carrier during the flight and the animal escapes, the airline’s liability may be difficult to establish.
By contrast, if cabin crew improperly move the carrier, place it somewhere with inadequate ventilation, damage the container or give instructions that directly cause injury to the animal, a claim against the carrier becomes considerably stronger.
Current IATA guidance requires dogs and cats travelling in cabin to remain in suitable containers. Among other considerations, the container must provide sufficient ventilation and allow appropriate positioning of the animal. IATA also warns that compression of soft-sided carriers may obstruct ventilation and cause heat build-up.
Accordingly, even apparently minor operational decisions regarding the location of an animal carrier may later become important evidence in a liability dispute.
When the Animal Travels as Cargo
The legal position changes again when the animal is shipped independently through an airline’s cargo system.
A racehorse transported from Türkiye to Dubai, a breeding dog sent to another country, or an animal relocation performed without the owner travelling on the same flight may be documented through an air waybill and treated as cargo.
Article 18 of the Montreal Convention governs destruction, loss and damage to cargo.
The carrier is generally responsible where the event causing the loss or damage occurs during carriage by air while the cargo is within its charge.
However, Article 18 also provides specific defences. These include damage resulting from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo and defective packing performed by someone other than the carrier or its servants or agents.
This becomes particularly significant for live animals.
If an airline can establish that an animal died because of an undisclosed pre-existing medical condition rather than because of transportation conditions, liability may be reduced or excluded depending on the circumstances.
Conversely, if evidence demonstrates that the animal was left for an excessive period in extreme heat, loaded into an unsuitable compartment, deprived of required ventilation or handled contrary to established live-animal procedures, reliance on the animal’s inherent condition becomes much more difficult.
The Most Important Financial Question: How Much Can the Airline Be Required to Pay?
Airline liability under the Montreal Convention is not automatically equivalent to the real economic or emotional value of the loss.
Following ICAO’s 2024 review, the revised liability limits effective from 28 December 2024 are:
For baggage, the Article 22(2) limit is 1,519 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per passenger.
For cargo, the Article 22(3) limit is 26 SDRs per kilogram.
This distinction can lead to striking results.
A passenger may regard a dog as emotionally priceless. A professionally trained dog may also have significant economic value.
Yet where the animal legally falls within the baggage regime and no special declaration has been made, the ordinary Montreal Convention compensation ceiling may apply.
Where the animal is transported as cargo, a weight-based limitation can produce an even lower figure relative to the animal’s real market value.
The compensation limits are therefore one of the most controversial aspects of applying traditional aviation baggage law to living animals.
Can the Owner Declare a Higher Value?
The Montreal Convention provides an important mechanism known as a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination.
For checked baggage, Article 22(2) permits a passenger, at the time the baggage is handed to the carrier, to make a special declaration and, where required, pay a supplementary charge.
Where validly made, the carrier may become liable up to the declared amount unless it proves that the declared amount exceeds the passenger’s actual interest in delivery.
The same basic concept exists in cargo transportation.
The practical problem is that passengers rarely know this mechanism exists.
Even fewer think of making a formal value declaration when checking in a dog or cat.
The 2025 Iberia case illustrates the significance of this issue. The Court expressly noted that no special declaration of interest had been made when the pet was checked in.
For owners transporting particularly valuable animals, asking the airline before travel and in writing whether a special declaration of value is available may therefore be extremely important.
Can the Airline Simply Say “Animals Travel at the Owner’s Risk”?
Airline conditions of carriage frequently contain extensive clauses concerning pets.
They may state that the owner assumes health risks, must provide an appropriate container, must obtain veterinary documents and bears responsibility for the animal’s suitability for air travel.
Such provisions can be legally relevant.
However, they do not give the airline unlimited freedom to eliminate mandatory liability.
Article 26 of the Montreal Convention provides that contractual provisions intended to relieve the carrier of liability or establish a lower limit than that permitted by the Convention are null and void. Article 27 nevertheless allows airlines to establish contractual transportation conditions that do not conflict with the Convention.
Turkish Civil Aviation Law contains a comparable principle. Article 125 provides that contractual terms seeking entirely or partially to eliminate the carrier’s statutory liability or reduce applicable liability limits are invalid.
An airline can therefore legitimately establish reasonable rules concerning crate specifications, prohibited breeds, veterinary documents and animal health.
It cannot necessarily use a broadly worded disclaimer to erase liability for its own legally actionable mishandling.
What If the Animal Had a Pre-Existing Health Condition?
Not every death during transportation means that the airline is legally responsible.
Air travel can expose animals to stress, unfamiliar noise, confinement, temperature variation and physiological effects associated with flight.
Certain animals may be particularly vulnerable because of age, breed or health conditions.
IATA’s current guidance states that sick, injured or debilitated animals may not be suitable for air travel and advises against routine sedation or tranquillisation because of the risks associated with an animal’s ability to respond to transportation stress.
The 2026 edition of the IATA Live Animals Regulations (LAR) took effect on 1 January 2026 and remains the industry’s principal global standard for commercial transportation of live animals.
IATA also released new operational guidance for in-cabin pet transportation in July 2026 as part of an effort to create more consistent practices covering booking, check-in, boarding, in-flight handling and arrival.
These IATA standards are not themselves equivalent to a national statute or international treaty. Nevertheless, they may become highly relevant when determining whether the airline, ground handler or shipper complied with the professional standards expected in live-animal transportation.
The Owner Can Also Be Partly Responsible
The Montreal Convention does not impose responsibility only on airlines.
Article 20 permits the carrier to obtain full or partial exoneration where it proves that the claimant’s negligence or wrongful act caused or contributed to the damage.
In a pet case, this could become relevant where the owner:
provides an unsuitable or damaged container, conceals an important medical condition, ignores veterinary advice, incorrectly secures the crate or provides inaccurate transport documentation.
The issue is therefore rarely as simple as asking whether the animal died “during the flight.”
The real legal question is:
What caused the injury or death, and which party controlled that cause?
Escape from the Crate: Who Is Responsible?
One of the most difficult factual scenarios involves a pet escaping during loading or unloading.
The first issue will be the condition of the container.
If the passenger supplied a defective carrier that opened because of its own construction, the carrier may argue contributory negligence or defective packing.
The position changes substantially if the container was properly secured but airline or ground-handling personnel opened it contrary to instructions.
The same applies where an airline accepts a container, assumes custody of the animal and subsequently handles it in a manner inconsistent with its own procedures.
Modern pet litigation therefore increasingly requires examination not only of the airline but also of:
ground handling companies, airport service providers, cargo terminals and subcontractors.
Determining exactly who had physical custody at the moment of escape may decide the case.
Death Caused by Heat, Cold or Lack of Ventilation
Temperature-related incidents are among the most serious risks in live-animal air transportation.
The relevant investigation should distinguish between conditions inside the aircraft and conditions during ground handling.
An aircraft hold designed to carry animals may be appropriately ventilated and temperature controlled while the animal nevertheless spends a dangerous amount of time outdoors before loading.
Likewise, an animal may remain in a baggage cart, transfer area or cargo facility during a connection.
The legal investigation should therefore reconstruct the entire timeline.
A simple statement that “the flight itself was properly operated” may not resolve liability where the damaging event occurred while the animal remained in the airline’s custody at the airport.
SHGM operational material similarly emphasises that live animals carried in aircraft holds require appropriate heating and ventilation arrangements and specific loading precautions.
Can the Owner Claim Emotional or Moral Damages?
This is perhaps the most emotionally difficult issue.
A passenger who loses a beloved pet may suffer psychological distress far greater than the market value of the animal.
Nevertheless, international aviation law imposes significant restrictions.
Article 29 of the Montreal Convention provides that actions for damages concerning passengers, baggage and cargo—whether framed in contract, tort or otherwise—remain subject to the Convention’s conditions and liability limits. It also excludes punitive, exemplary and other non-compensatory damages.
The 2025 CJEU judgment is particularly significant because it confirmed, in the baggage context before it, that the Montreal Convention liability ceiling encompasses both material and non-material loss associated with the lost pet.
Accordingly, merely describing a claim as “emotional distress”, “moral damages” or a tort claim does not necessarily allow a passenger to escape the Montreal Convention liability system in an international carriage case.
The position in purely domestic Turkish transportation requires separate analysis under Turkish law and the specific statutory basis of the claim.
When Can the Airline Lose the Benefit of the Baggage Liability Limit?
For baggage claims, Article 22(5) of the Montreal Convention can remove the ordinary Article 22 liability limitation where it is established that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents committed with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.
Turkish Civil Aviation Law contains a comparable concept in Article 126. It provides for loss of the statutory liability limitation where the requisite intentional or knowingly reckless conduct is proved.
This is a high evidentiary threshold.
Ordinary negligence is not necessarily enough.
But imagine evidence showing that personnel knew an animal had been left in extreme heat, were repeatedly warned that the animal was in distress and nevertheless deliberately left it there without intervention.
Such facts could produce a very different legal analysis from an unforeseeable medical emergency.
What Evidence Should Be Collected Immediately?
Pet transportation disputes are won or lost through evidence.
The owner should act immediately after discovering loss, injury or death. The most useful evidence will usually include the boarding documents, pet reservation confirmation, baggage tag or air waybill, photographs and video of the animal immediately before check-in, photographs of the transport crate, veterinary health certificates, post-incident veterinary records and, in fatal cases where appropriate, a veterinary post-mortem report.
Requests should also be considered for preservation of airport CCTV, ground-handling records, loading documents, transfer timestamps, incident reports, internal airline communications, temperature records and information identifying the handling company responsible for the animal.
The most important factual objective is to create a minute-by-minute custody timeline from check-in until delivery.
Strict Notification Deadlines Matter
Passengers should not wait for weeks before formally notifying the airline.
Under Turkish Civil Aviation Law Article 128, damage to passenger baggage should generally be notified immediately upon discovery and, at the latest, within seven days of delivery; for cargo the statutory period is fourteen days. Claims relating to delay are subject to a twenty-one-day notification period. The notice must be made in writing or recorded on the transport document.
The Montreal Convention contains comparable formal notice requirements.
There is also a much more serious final deadline.
Under Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, the right to damages is extinguished unless proceedings are brought within two years calculated from the date of arrival at destination, the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or the date on which carriage stopped.
Turkish Civil Aviation Law Article 131 likewise establishes a two-year period for liability actions arising from carriage.
Pet owners should therefore avoid treating prolonged customer-service correspondence as a substitute for protecting their legal rights.
Domestic Flights Within Türkiye
Where the journey takes place entirely within Türkiye, the starting point is Turkish Civil Aviation Law No. 2920.
Article 106 provides that domestic air carriage is governed first by the Turkish Civil Aviation Law; where the Law contains no provision, Türkiye’s applicable international agreements and, subsequently, relevant Turkish commercial-law rules may become applicable.
Articles 121 to 131 contain the principal statutory framework concerning damage to baggage and cargo, carrier defences, liability limitation, invalid contractual exclusions, unlimited liability in specified circumstances, notification requirements and the two-year action period.
The precise liability limit applicable to a domestic pet claim should nevertheless be analysed according to the transportation date, characterisation of the animal as baggage or cargo and the relevant statutory and treaty references rather than assuming that every international-flight rule automatically applies without qualification.
Why IATA Rules Can Become Important Evidence
The IATA Live Animals Regulations are central operational standards in international animal transportation.
The 2026 edition applies from 1 January to 31 December 2026 and addresses matters including carrier and shipper responsibilities, government requirements, booking, documentation, animal identification, container specifications and operational handling.
Compliance with these rules does not automatically decide civil liability.
But they can provide an important benchmark.
If an airline claims that an incident was unavoidable while evidence shows that its personnel departed materially from established live-animal handling procedures, the discrepancy may become highly relevant.
Conversely, if the airline complied with applicable rules and the loss resulted primarily from the animal’s undisclosed medical condition or an unsuitable container provided by the owner, those facts may strengthen the carrier’s defence.
Conclusion: A Pet Is Not a Suitcase—But Aviation Liability Law May Treat It as Baggage
The law of pet transportation reveals one of the most difficult tensions in modern aviation law.
Socially and emotionally, a companion animal may be a member of the family.
Legally, however, international air-carrier liability was historically structured around three principal categories:
passengers, baggage and cargo.
There is no independent Montreal Convention category called “companion animal”.
The 2025 judgment in Felicísima v Iberia made this distinction especially clear by holding that pets are not excluded from the Convention’s concept of baggage when transported within that structure.
That classification has real consequences.
A pet travelling as checked baggage may fall within the Montreal Convention baggage regime, currently subject to a standard maximum of 1,519 SDRs per passenger unless an applicable exception or higher declaration changes the result. An animal transported independently as cargo may instead fall within a 26 SDR-per-kilogram liability regime.
But these limits do not mean airlines are free to handle animals carelessly.
The legal outcome still depends on how the animal was transported, who had custody, whether applicable safety and live-animal standards were followed, whether the owner contributed to the loss, whether the carrier can rely on an inherent-health-condition defence and whether conduct serious enough to defeat an applicable limitation can be proved.
For passengers, the most important lesson therefore begins before the aircraft leaves the ground.
Before travelling with an animal, owners should understand whether the pet is being carried as PETC, AVIH or cargo; obtain the airline’s conditions in writing; confirm container and health requirements; consider whether a special declaration of value is available; and preserve all transportation documents.
If something does go wrong, evidence should be secured immediately.
Because once a pet disappears, is injured or dies during air transportation, the dispute is no longer simply about an airline’s customer-service policy.
It becomes a question of international aviation liability, chain of custody, contractual risk allocation and the legal value that aviation law is prepared to place on the loss of a living animal.
No Responses