LEGAL PROTECTION OF PASSENGERS FOR LOSS AND DAMAGE OF LUGGAGE ON AIR AIRLINES BASED ON THE 1999 MONTREAL CONVENTION AND NATIONAL LAW CASE STUDY RULING NUMBER 44/PDT-Sus-BPSK/2023/PN.PDG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air transportation plays a strategic role in the mobility of people and goods, but the risk of loss and damage to baggage is an important issue that requires legal regulation. The Montreal Convention 1999 and national laws, including Law Number 1 of 2009 concerning Aviation, provide the legal basis for airlines' liability to passengers. These regulations set limits on airline liability and compensation claim procedures that aim to provide protection and legal certainty for passengers. This study uses a descriptive method with a normative legal approach, utilizing primary, secondary, and tertiary data that are analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study indicate that the legal regulations related to airline liability for loss and damage to baggage are quite comprehensive. However, its implementation still faces obstacles, such as complicated and less transparent claim procedures. Incidents of loss or damage to goods have material and psychological impacts on passengers and can damage the airline's reputation. Therefore, steps are needed to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of the rules, including simplifying claim procedures, increasing transparency, and monitoring airline compliance in order to protect consumer rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".