00The second compensation, in the form of a refund or an alternative flight ticket of the passenger's choice, is anchored in section 3(a)(3). The law requires the flight operator to provide an alternative flight at the earliest possible date.
0
The third compensation relates to monetary compensation in accordance with the first addendum to the law - compensation that has already been discussed and decided.
I will note that even in cases where the passenger is entitled to assistance and did not receive the assistance in full, the award of compensation, for example, is not automatic and he must prove that the non-provision of the benefit was done "knowingly" - not only because she deliberately decided to refrain from providing any assistance and evaded it, but also because she made a conscious decision not to provide, for example, hotel accommodation or food. I am of the opinion that in this framework, even a conscious decision not to provide but to impose it on the passenger as a "fait accompli" in such a way that the passenger himself will provide for himself and she will be indemnified afterwards, only where he will contact her and not on her initiative, will present a receipt and indemnify at her discretion falls under the "knowingly" component. Therefore, a statement according to which "but the assistance in real time, if I make an announcement in real time, and I propose to indemnify him for $250 in exchange for him going wherever he wants, as far as I am concerned, this is the company decided to indemnify later on, it is to provide assistance" (p. 187, paras. 21-23 of Mr. Radomsky's testimony) insofar as there is no real-time alternative to help on the part or position of the customer service representative, Mr. Avi Zamir, when asked what happens if the passenger does not have money to finance a hotel and food and is not prepared in terms of and he did not have dollars and he could and came from another country and it is an intermediate stop, and he replied that the interpretation of the law is that when a person takes out and brings receipts for assistance services (although he later retracted his statement and confirmed that yes must be provided in real time) or the defendant's attorney's answer to the question of whether it is possible to instruct a person who does not have money to spend in the first place, and then if he does not have it, then he will sleep in the street and they will not answer him that he did not spend on a hotel - "so he waited in the field", And the court wondered "36 hours to wait in the field" and replied, "What should I do? They told you that there was complete chaos" and in the defendant's summaries that "there is no requirement that the assistance services be provided in real time, but that they be free of charge" - it should not be accepted, insofar as it has been proven in practice that this was the case, all the more so where it is also a matter of perception in relation to the interpretation of the law, and on this basis a conscious decision was formulated to provide retroactively and not in advance. A statement that the reimbursement of expenses constitutes the provision of assistance services according to the requirement of the legislature that there is no obligation to provide in advance in real time, but the main thing is that without payment, since the box "eligible" means that the passenger will take care of himself with self-financing and from his own sources, and after he returns to Israel, he will initiate an application to the airline (sometimes his place of residence abroad) and prove his expenses and reimburse at its discretion - does not meet this obligation. and violates the concept and purpose that underpinned the law and its purpose, taking into account the extensive discussions in the Economic Affairs Committee and what was stated in the explanatory notes to the bill in its first reading. The purpose of the assistance services is to provide an immediate response to a passenger who is in a situation of unplanned disruption in his flight, when the airline is the one that is supposed to provide the services (food, accommodation, transportation and communication) free of charge and in real time, and to prevent the passenger from having to locate these services and finance them himself, especially since he is located in foreign countries, and therefore it is not possible to suffice with retroactive reimbursement since the legislature did not permit the obligation to "redee" the obligation of late payment assistance in the sense of a rule (see class action 46233-02-17 Hillel Akiva Barak v. El Al and if an airline chooses in advance not to provide real-time assistance and to refer passengers to keep receipts, then it is not impossible that it will be obligated to pay exemplary compensation without proof of damage, even if no pecuniary damage was caused to the passenger and he did not prove his expenses, for the reason that one of the purposes of exemplary compensation is to deter the company from such conduct. Moreover, let us not forget that this is a consumer law and we are dealing with an active duty imposed on the airline and according to what is stated in section 17 of the law, it cannot be stipulated except for the benefit of the passenger (this is different when he is outside the airport, because then it is clear that the service cannot be provided in real time and then he is entitled to request a refund for the expenses he incurred, and in this regard see also Appeal 46233-02-17 Hillel Akiva Barak v. El Al above). Insofar as this is the state of affairs, then the indemnification can and does constitute a consideration regarding the scope of the compensation where it will be given but does not negate the breach where it did not provide assistance in real time, in practice and not retroactively (something that the defendant's customer relations representative, Mr. Avi Zamir, confirmed at the end of the day in his interrogation that the assistance services should be provided in real time and not a month later when the defendant received the receipt).