This paper is the partial result of an empirical research about the real extension of Ruling 1.240 from the Brazilian Supreme Court that says, “The Warsaw and Montreal Conventions do not apply to cases of non-material damages resulting from an international air transport contract.” However, the Supreme Court did not detail under which conditions moral damages fall aside the Montreal Convention. The research hypothesis is that it is not necessary all questions related to moral damages (such as the statute of time limitation etc.) fall out of reach of the Montreal Convention, being enough that only the amount of the indemnity to repair moral damages is not covered by the Montreal Convention. The empirical research took into consideration the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice decisions about moral damages and international air transportation to measure if the application of Montreal Convention instead of the Consumer Code would have changed the result of the judgment. Were found 37 decisions from the Supreme Court and 52 from the Superior Court of Justice. Having reviewed more than 50% of the decisions, the partial results show that the application of Montreal Convention instead of the Consumer Code would not have changed the result of the judgments. The partial conclusion is that, in practical terms, Ruling 1.240 should be interpreted as only concerning the limits of the indemnification that can be awarded for moral damages, as the other issues are duly covered by the Montreal Convention. The research also points out the interest in having the discussion about moral damages, its indemnification and the application of the international air transportation conventions better explicated in the Brazilian air transportation public policy to avoid the time and the cost of lengthy legal and judicial discussions.