Moreover, even if it was the malfunction that would have caused the flight to be canceled, given the statutory exception due to the desecration of the Sabbath or holiday, it is no longer meaningful in practice whether it could have been prevented. Although theoretically it can be said that it is possible and this is an old plane and therefore the wear and tear on it is greater and the likelihood that the part will break is greater and whether it will maintain the plane properly or if there was a more skilled crew because then it would not have loaded all the luggage in view of the weight (and then another question arises where a conscious splitting of luggage is done without the knowledge of the passenger and the consequences of this) in such a way that such a malfunction would not have happened and then they would have set off without the need to enter into the desecration of Shabbat (a claim by the way that was not claimed), However, if, for the sake of illustration, the pilot came back tired after being drunk and they were unable to catch him for about an hour and a half, we would have reached the same result, as outrageous as it may be. In other words, this cannot be separated from the overall concept of the Aviation Services Law, that even if a malfunction occurred that was expected and could have been prevented, despite the inconvenience involved, the defendant could have "enjoyed" a period of time until it was obligated to receive some benefit, and therefore the difference is only due to the day and not to the nature of the malfunction and whether it was expected or not, and hence the obvious conclusion is that even if it is claimed that it failed to maintain the aircraft in such a way that it could have been launched had it not been for the malfunction that could have been foreseen ( And the plaintiffs, as stated, do not claim this at all in their statement of claim and do not deal with the malfunction and the ability to solve it, but only with the reason for the cancellation due to Shabbat, when there was no dispute that an attempt was made to repair it, but when the time factor had passed before landing on the holiday, the flight was canceled) - then it cannot be judged obligatory only because it is a holiday eve or a Shabbat, when on a normal day it would not have been judged positively where there is no difference in the nature of the malfunction. It is not possible to apply special duties to it for the eves of Shabbat and holidays in such a way that the inspection of the maintenance of the aircraft is supposed to be under an increased duty of care as opposed to the duty of care on the rest of the week, when the law permits it to delay departure for up to 5 hours without granting any benefit to the passenger (as long as of course it has fulfilled the obligation to inform regarding the postponement of a flight date, not by virtue of the Aviation Services Law but also by virtue of the contract with the passenger). Therefore, and as stated, however difficult the result may be, the defendant in fact does not need to show efforts in accordance with the provision of section 6(e)(1) of the Law, and any distinction that requires it to present efforts is a matter that the legislature must discuss in order to prevent situations that can in certain circumstances, and I do not determine that this is the case, to be a cynical use of the provisions of the law where negligence is proven.
- As stated, the legal question under this lawsuit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation under the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance due to Flight Cancellation or Change in its Conditions), 5772-2012 for the cancellation of flight LY008, which was scheduled to take off at 23:35 (New York time) and was supposed to land in Israel at 16:50 Israel time, about 50 minutes before the start of Simchat Torah in Israel, but due to the delay expressed by an hour and a half, was forced to cancel the flight due to her claim of an exception in the law set forth in section 6(e)(3) of the law, since the cancellation of the flight was intended to prevent the desecration of the Sabbath and holidays. There is no dispute that a delay of an hour and a half in itself would not have amounted to a flight cancellation or even a delay in the departure of the flight, and therefore, theoretically, the flight could have been flown and the passengers could have been brought to their destination an hour and a half late, and the entire claim would have been superfluous. However, due to the situation in which the defendant found itself when it set the landing time about 50 minutes before the start of the holiday, a delay that is less than the legislature's definition of a delay in the minimum take-off that grants a kind of benefit (a delay of two hours provides food, beverages and communication services under section 7(a) of the Law, but a delay of five hours and less than eight hours also grants restitution of consideration or an alternative flight ticket, and more than eight hours also grants statutory compensation). It would have already resulted in the cancellation of a flight due to landing on a holiday or Shabbat, and since it markets itself as a Sabbath-observant, it canceled the flight and clings to the legislature's exclusion from the passengers' entitlement to compensation from the flight operator or organizer, so that it is exempt from providing statutory compensation.
And to be precise; There is substance to the plaintiffs' implied argument that inherently there is a situation in which almost any delay related to a certain malfunction in the plane will cause a desecration and as a result the defendant will cancel the flight, so that the cancellation ostensibly becomes "automatic", as well as the exemption from statutory compensation for the restriction of the Sabbath, when it sells tickets knowing that the landing is less than an hour before the start of a Shabbat or holiday, and at the same time markets itself as a Sabbath observant in order to attract a crowd of passengers as part of the competition in the economy. According to them, this conduct is an "injustice" "with the authority of the Torah" because the law is on her side, when, according to her, her responsibility ends upon landing, even if it involves desecration of Shabbat or holiday upon arrival in Israel, in view of the tight timetable with landing 50 minutes before the start of the holiday, when you have to go through bureaucracy when leaving the airport, even if there is an active airport on Shabbat or holiday, and there is still service, since this is not relevant to her, but only that the flight will not take place on a holiday or on Shabbat, when the schedule The flights are fixed so that it is a company that observes Shabbat as it markets itself when it comes to its limitation and not of all airlines flying to Israel, including Israeli companies, given that the airport operates on Shabbat but can sell tickets knowing that at the end of the day the passenger can desecrate Shabbat due to the time of landing and that there will be no compensation where the flight will be canceled due to the prevention of Shabbat desecration. The problem is that even though the spirit of the Sages is not comfortable with him, the question at the end of the day is whether he violated the Aviation Services Law by not providing statutory compensation, given that the laws of equity do not apply.