As for the assistance services, she claimed that she had made efforts to locate alternative flights to Israel through foreign airlines, but these attempts did not bear fruit. Therefore, EL AL has set an alternative take-off date immediately after the end of the holiday for October 21, 2019 at 19:15. At this stage, the defendant tried to obtain accommodation for the passengers, but the process of finding hotel rooms in sufficient quantity for all passengers late at night took a long time. Therefore, the station manager suggested to passengers that those who do not want to wait can find a place to stay themselves. The defendant claimed that she had informed the passengers through the station manager that she would compensate them in the sum of US$250 per night per room for two nights. The manager of the El Al station at the airport also clarified to the flight passengers that the company will undertake to indemnify them for all their direct expenses, including travel expenses, food and drink, subject to the presentation of supporting receipts.
Not only that. After the passengers returned to Israel, the defendant offered the plaintiffs compensation in the sum of US$300 for use as part of EL AL's services. In addition, all passengers who wish to do so were invited to submit receipts for their direct expenses, for the purpose of examining them and providing compensation at EL AL's discretion.
- In light of the aforesaid, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to statutory compensation under the provisions of the law in view of the exemption set forth in section 6(e)(3) of the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance Due to Flight Cancellation or Change in its Conditions), 5772-2012. Since the only source on which the plaintiffs can rely on their claim is the Aviation Services Law, they cannot add to the statutory compensation an additional claim for mental anguish resulting from the delay of take-off.
With regard to the claimants' claim for exemplary damages by virtue of section 11 of the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance Due to Flight Cancellation or Change in its Conditions), 5772-2012, it should be dismissed since it provided assistance services to the plaintiffs. As for the statutory compensation, it acted in accordance with the provisions of the law, by virtue of the exceptions set forth in section 6(e)(1) and 6(e)(2) of the law. She also claimed that she did not breach her obligations under section 14 of the law and did not breach her duty to inform. This is because already at the time of ordering and receiving the tickets, the passengers receive centralized information regarding their entitlement to the benefits, through a link to the defendant's website, where the Aviation Services Law and its summary appear. In addition, according to the defendant, there are representatives at the airport stations who provide passengers with detailed explanations of their rights, for use in the event that there is a cause of action, and unlike Ben Gurion Airport, not every airport abroad is allowed to hang signs.