AJet Refused Robot Vacuum Despite Written Confirmation
On 22 September 2026 I travelled with AJet on flight VF1988 from London Stansted to Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen, under reservation code 4NNN51, booked in the name of Ali Bilal Erdoğan for two passengers. Before the flight, I contacted AJet via WhatsApp and clearly asked whether our Roborock Qrevo 2 Pro robot vacuum could be carried in checked baggage. I provided the exact battery details in writing: a 14.4V / 5200mAh = 74.88Wh lithium‑ion battery, installed inside the device. AJet confirmed in writing that, since the battery was below 100Wh and installed in the device, the robot vacuum could be carried in checked baggage with the battery installed. I have the full WhatsApp correspondence proving this. Despite this written confirmation, at around 10:30 on 22 September 2026, when my husband tried to check in the item at London Stansted, AJet staff refused to accept it simply because it contained a battery. We showed them AJet’s written WhatsApp confirmation, the battery specifications and the relevant rules, but they still refused the item. They then changed the reason and refused it on the basis that the original manufacturer’s box had a Dangerous Goods marking. We clearly explained that this was the original packaging and offered to show the actual device and its technical specifications, yet the staff still insisted on refusing it. We spent roughly an hour at the airport trying to resolve this issue with the staff. Only when there were about 50 minutes left before departure did they say they could inspect the item, while at the same time warning that this inspection could take hours and that my husband might miss his flight. Under this pressure and with no realistic alternative offered, my husband had to leave the robot vacuum at the airport’s paid storage facility in order not to miss the flight. As a direct result of the inconsistent and misleading information provided by AJet and the handling by the ground staff, we suffered concrete financial loss. We paid 1,572.65 TL for checked baggage that we were not allowed to use for the robot vacuum. We paid an additional £80 for airport storage at Stansted. On top of this, we will incur further documented courier or transport costs to collect the device from Stansted, which we would not have faced if AJet had honoured its own written confirmation. In light of the above, I request a full refund of the 1,572.65 TL checked baggage fee for this item, reimbursement of the £80 storage fee, and payment of reasonable, documented courier or transport costs that arise from having to recover the robot vacuum from Stansted. I also request a detailed written explanation of why your staff refused to carry the item despite AJet’s explicit prior written confirmation that it could be transported in checked baggage under the applicable battery rules, and how you intend to prevent such contradictions and resulting losses for passengers in the future. In addition, I expect appropriate compensation in view of the time lost, stress caused and the financial losses directly arising from this incident.
. Because the batteries of lithium‑battery robot vacuums are not removable from the device, they are not suitable for transport on aircraft under the current dangerous goods regulations. Therefore, lithium‑battery robot vacuums whose batteries cannot be separated from the device are not accepted in checked or cabin baggage. That is what the email said. Incorrect information. In the “Dangerous Goods” document published on AJet’s own website, the following statement is clearly included: “Lithium‑ion batteries may be carried in cabin and checked baggage up to 100 Wh, provided they remain inside the device.” https://ajet.com/tr/kurumsal/kurallar-ve-kosullar/bagaj 2. AJet’s own quality management system document explicitly states this. At the bottom of the document is the notation AJet KYS Form No: Fr. 67.0326 Rev. 00 – 06.03.2024. Our device’s battery is 74.88 Wh, which is below the 100 Wh limit, and the battery is inside the device. The same AJet document also notes that spare batteries between 100 Wh and 160 Wh are subject to separate rules. Our product does not have a spare/extra battery. 3. Moreover, the IATA 2026 Passenger Guide indicates that for portable electronic devices (PED) with lithium‑ion batteries of 100 Wh or less that are inside the device, the checked‑baggage option is available, provided the device is completely turned off to protect it from damage and prevent accidental operation. 4. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) also states in its current passenger guide that lithium‑ion battery‑powered portable electronic devices with batteries up to 100 Wh may be transported in checked baggage when the required safety conditions are met.
They responded that smart luggage is not allowed to be carried. Look, nobody on the team knows how to read or understand what they read. The product that is to be carried is not smart luggage, but a Roborock Qrevo 2 Pro robot vacuum cleaner. Therefore, an explanation is required as to why a rule concerning smart luggage is being applied to this product. The product's lithium‑ion battery is 14.4 V / 5200 mAh = 74.88 Wh and the battery is inside the device. Furthermore, in AJet's own published document ajet kys Form No: Fr. 67.0326 Rev. 00 – 06.03.2024, the provision states: “Lithium ion batteries up to 100 Wh can be carried in the cabin and in checked baggage if they are inside a device.” For this reason I am not asking for a general explanation such as “civil aviation rules” or “current rules”, but I am requesting concrete legal basis: 1. What is the name of the document and the article/section number of the current rule that prohibits the transport of the Roborock Qrevo 2 Pro? 2. If this rule actually applies to “smart luggage”, on what provision is the robot vacuum classified under that category? 3. Why does the provision in AJet's own document, which allows lithium‑ion batteries up to 100 Wh in checked baggage when they are inside a device, not apply to this product? 4. If the 100 Wh provision in AJet's 2024 document has later been amended or revoked, please provide the relevant updated document and the date of the change.
