Civil Case (N) 4843-03-20 Aviram Becker v. El Caspi Case – Supreme Court Israel Airlines Ltd. - part 31

Beyond the necessity, it should be noted that the matter of Shabbat is not unique in that if you publish the Shabbat restriction, you will have to publish a list of additional restrictions - for example, in matters of security, such as the closure of an airport, etc., taking into account the frequency of the occurrence of such an event leading to the cancellation of a flight in a way that will be argued against an information overload as having the potential to be misleading.  As mentioned, this is not the only "limitation".  In his cross-examination, the director of the Control Division testified that even if the Shabbat restriction is known, "we always work with something that puts us in friction with some kind of limitation.  It's not just us.  The entire industry.  Taking off from an airport 45 minutes before it closes, that's something, look at every airport website.  There are dozens of such flights...  If everyone is delayed by an hour, then dozens of flights are canceled? It is a fact that those who meet the deadlines and events of delays that cause something like this are on the margins" (see p.  26 of the minutes of the hearing of March 13, 2024, pp.  13-18, and see also the testimony of Mr. Avi Zamir, the defendant's representative, who claimed that he had conducted an investigation into the matter, and that out of 2,600-2,700 flights during a year of Fridays alone, only two flights were canceled due to the combination of a technical malfunction and the Shabbat limitation, so that it is "the exception of the exceptions", "Two-thirds of the promile" - p.  139, paras.  26-32, when in 2023 there were 35 flights canceled due to a technical malfunction and only two of the 35 flights occurred on Friday).  He also clarified that the interest was to cancel the flight, and that such an event has tremendous operational implications - the plane was not there on the weekend, not available on Saturday night for its next flight, and it also harmed the crew, regardless of the compensation of the customers when there is a service injury to the customers.  In any event, one of the plaintiffs' passengers testified that he knew that she observed the Sabbath, and the claims made by the plaintiffs are in fact contrary to the defendant's choice and policy not to fly on Shabbat, when she is not obligated by law not to fly on Shabbat, but rather she chose it as a policy (and as the director of the Control Division testified - "The Shabbat restriction is a restriction that El Al imposed on itself by choice.  It is advertised on every possible channel") - something that was repeated over and over again when it was claimed that while the legislature determined that it is forbidden to land at certain hours during the noise hours, the Shabbat restriction according to which one does not fly on Shabbat is not a restriction that the legislature set and he did not prohibit flying on Shabbat, "and whoever took upon himself this 'law', not a law, this procedure, not flying on Shabbat is El Al, on its own initiative" and that this is the choice of El Al, not the legal hostel to attack El Al's policy as aforesaid, and where it chose not to fly on Shabbat or holidays and canceled the flight in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday, then it can rely on the exemption.  The legislature recognized that it was El Al's choice not to fly on Shabbat, and also recognized that El Al is in fact the only company that does not fly on Shabbat and therefore this exemption can be used by it, and therefore the claim that it chose the policy of not flying on Shabbat when the law does not prohibit it and that "there is no legal restriction" for which it did not carry out the flight does not negate the protection under which it is protected and lead to its obligation to statutory compensation or exemplary compensation due to Her conduct in knowing in advance that the landing was close to the beginning of the holiday, and the significance of this being that she observed Shabbat and holidays, since she chose this policy, she is fully protected by the law: