In his testimony, he said that they are prepared in advance for situations of flight cancellations: "There is a so-called late flight procedure. Dispersal procedure, it's all organized by El Al's procedures. I have a fixed shuttle company that brings buses according to availability. I have a company that provides me with hotels, I have a contract with them, depending on the availability of rooms at that point. I don't have so-called, I don't pre-book 100 rooms in case and. I currently have a friend who, in case I get stuck, I pick up the phone to her and she starts providing me with rooms according to availability." He confirmed that he did not have rooms for everyone and that "I did not have 300 rooms in one second" and said that he had announced on the orders of El Al that anyone who could manage on their own would receive a refund of $250 per night, and that anyone who wanted a room was provided with a room. If a traveler wants a hotel at the moment and doesn't have one, it is still a matter of meeting the assistance services by getting a budget to get by. He testified that he did offer all the passengers a choice between returning the money or an alternative flight with another company or an alternative flight on El Al, and "everyone who was, until the last of the passengers received it and whoever stayed, I didn't leave the place until the last passengers asked for assistance, until the last passengers who asked for assistance." When asked again about a proposal for an alternative flight, he replied that as stated in the report, the examination stated that there was no possibility of alternative flights because there were no seats on all flights. There was also an intention to register for alternative flights, and later, after an examination by HaMoked in Israel, it was found that there were no alternative flights.
- Regarding hotel accommodation, the defendant claimed that it tried and even succeeded in arranging hotel accommodations for the passengers, but was unable to arrange accommodations for all the passengers taking into account the number of passengers on the flight (about 280 people), and therefore it announced that passengers who do not wish to wait can find a flight on their own and that the reimbursement for the expenses of staying at the hotel will be $250 per night. Since the waiting time was two nights, the total amount of the refund amounts to $500 - all as evidenced by the testimony and affidavit of the station manager, including the real-time report. I will already note that the vast majority of the plaintiffs confirmed this in their affidavits and testimony that the defendant presented this as "someone who can" act on his own, otherwise he will wait. In other words, those who did not receive it, most of them made use of the verb "can", i.e., "possibility" - not mandatory, and as an alternative to waiting and receiving accommodation in a hotel that will take care of it in practice, and in advance, by the defendant. They chose to make a conscious decision instead of waiting for a long time at the airport. The complaints were not because they were not given a room (and therefore even if EL AL did not present supporting invoices for the report and its authentic handwritten notes in real time, this is not a controversial figure) but were in relation to the quality of the room, the place where they received a room, and alternatively, because it was located far from a tourist area or because it took a long time to wait in the chaos that was created, so they chose to locate a hotel themselves. When it is possible to take into account the number of passengers, because it takes time to make a list of hotels available, and it is not expected that due to the fear of canceling a flight, for example, due to the beginning of the holiday, in light of an unexpected malfunction that occurred, but in view of landing close to the holiday, they were forced to cancel the flight, all passengers will be booked in advance for a hotel room, and then if the flight is executed, they will take action to cancel the reservations.
- With regard to the communication services, Mr. Radomsky's testimony indicates that there was Wi-Fi at the airport and that the passengers were informed of this, and that passengers who wished to make a phone call (plaintiff No. 33) were given the opportunity to do so through the personal device of a security guard at the airport (which, according to the testimony of the station manager, turned out to be an employee of the defendant). And to be precise; There is no dispute that the burden of proving that assistance services were provided is on the defendant, but where it lifts the burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to prove otherwise. The plaintiffs did not meet this burden, all the more so that they claimed that this was a "critical point" that justified the imposition of punitive compensation. In these circumstances, the defendant lifted the burden of proving that it had fulfilled its duty. I gave my attention to the testimony of the passenger, who claimed that she had been told that there was no possibility, but that passenger did receive the opportunity to call, but claimed that it was not from the defendant but from the security guard, when the testimony of Mr. Radomsky, the station manager in New York, who actually handled the incident in real time, indicates that it was a representative of the defendant, as stated. With the exception of a general statement, none of the plaintiffs claimed that they wanted to send an email and could not, and each of the plaintiffs claimed that he did not need a fax since he did not use a fax, and the person who complained about the phone indicates that at the end of the day he did receive assistance, taking into account the chaos instead of dealing with all the passengers whose flight was canceled, which certainly required waiting time, when the communication services are relevant to waiting at the airport. And to be precise; There is no obligation to provide payment for the purchase of a SIM package abroad or for the extension of the package (as arose from the affidavit of plaintiffs 27-28), as part of the assistance services.
- As for the expenses relating to the assistance services, towards those of us independently in the hotel, as well as in relation to food outside the airport during the stay - a considerable part, and it can be said that almost all of the plaintiffs, with the exception of a few in number, did not contact the defendant at all in order to receive the refunds, although the defendant noted that the possibility of submitting receipts is available to them upon landing in Israel - both in real time and upon disembarking from the plane. It turns out that she was also not contacted before proceedings were taken. There is no dispute, and thus it emerged from all the testimonies, that they were explicitly informed that they were entitled to contact the defendant to receive refunds and present receipts, and the matter would be examined by EL AL's representatives, when the applicant received reimbursement for his full expenses, without distinction or restriction regarding the cost of the hotel or food, and explained that her intention in stating that the matter would be examined or considered by her regarding the reimbursement of expenses is for cases in which expenses are requested that are not part of her obligation to repay - for example, the purchase of clothes in the amount of hundreds of dollars ($524 on by plaintiffs 34-35, $217 by plaintiff 14 and $92 by plaintiff 9) or hospitality in a restaurant of the passengers who are not passengers on the flight (plaintiffs 14-15), as she presented as examples from appendices attached to the passengers' affidavits and questioned the passengers about it.
- As for the possibility of an alternative flight, with the exception of one family who found an alternative flight through UNITED shortly after the flight was canceled, the rest of the passengers returned on the flight scheduled for September 21, 2019 at around 19:30. The possibility of locating alternative flights for passengers was also raised in a report filled out by the station manager in New York in real time. Regarding the refund of the flight ticket - I will address it separately.
- An additional benefit that the defendant must provide to the passengers is the supply of food and drink products according to the length of the waiting time. According to a report filled out by the station manager in New York in real time, as well as testimony, dishes that were prepared on the plane were heated for the passengers and the dish was offered as soon as the flight was canceled. Plaintiff No. 26 attached as an appendix to the affidavit a receipt for expenses for food that turned out to be true, and thus confirmed in her testimony that this was a voucher that the defendant had provided her at the airport for food, in addition (although it is as of October 21, and therefore it is understood that this is for the time she waited for the flight when she arrived to check in for the flight in the evening, when the station manager also said that on the night the flight was canceled, the restaurants at the airport were closed, and also a message that he distributed vouchers to passengers for $20 after they were picked up from the hotels to the airport). In addition, the defendant presented receipts (Appendix G) indicating the provision of 25 breakfasts and 38 dinners (handwritten in such a way that it appears that an inquiry was made regarding this point) for the time spent outside the airport at the Lagardia Hotel. It is also possible to learn, although not in a clear and orderly manner according to Appendix G submitted by the defendant, that there was a supply of 18 breakfasts, 27 lunches, and 38 dinners. However, it is not clear in this matter which hotel (although the station manager mentioned the Radisson Hotel) and how these rations were provided out of the 280 passengers who remained (only 58 claimants) when the testimony of the station manager in New York, as well as the report he filled out in real time, showed that the hotels to which the passengers were sent provide breakfast or breakfast and dinner. The plaintiffs, who did receive a hotel, stated in their testimony that the accommodation at the hotel did not include food and that they purchased independently. When asked why they did not report this to the defendant, they said that it was a holiday and there was no one to talk to. In a single case, it was stated that upon arrival at the hotel provided by the defendant, the dining room was closed, with plaintiffs 41, 43 and 44 stating that they did not eat at the hotel because they did not register for the meal as requested by the hotel's procedure, and not because they were told that the defendant's undertaking included only accommodation without breakfast. And from here you learn that there was a dining room and it was possible to get a meal if they had signed up for a meal in that case and this is a specific matter of the hotel's procedures, when some said that the hotel was in an area that was not pleasant to walk around and that the rooms were of a poor standard and it is not clear if this is the reason why they did not eat in the hotel, and in any case, the documentation in real time that those hotels provide food and to which the passengers were sent, It establishes compliance with the fact that it fulfilled its duty when it did not know that food was not supplied there, contrary to advertising, when the person providing the list to it was a third party whose services it hired for cases in which it must provide assistance services, as part of the "drawer plan" and its preparations for these situations (although it has already received criticism in the past and has not been implemented, but in this matter the plaintiffs who received the hotel were asked why they did not contact the defendant even after they arrived in Israel with complaints against the hotel. When this is in order to establish for the defendant the right to return to those hotels at a reasonable time (a place where she also paid for the meals or because the price presented by the hotel would price both accommodation and meals) and therefore a place where they spent independently for the purchase of food, she is willing to indemnify them, despite the fact that as far as she is concerned she paid for a hotel with meals when they are outside the airport and therefore cannot provide them with vouchers or dishes directly, And it is difficult to expect that you will provide each passenger in advance with about $200 for food and travel or $700 including accommodation, and then the discussion is only about the differences, also in terms of preparing for cash for about 280 passengers. Therefore, in this state of affairs, I am of the opinion that the defendant did fulfill its obligation even where a passenger purchases for himself that there is no dispute that she offered it in real time, and then all of them together submit to her a request for refunds, which she performs in Israel in the usual ways. Let's not forget that punitive compensation depends on the fact that she "knowingly" did not provide assistance services. Therefore, where the plaintiffs did provide even if only partially, then the argument that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that this was done knowingly, "as opposed to an attempt that failed to provide these benefits as required" to all passengers in real time (see and compare: Civil Appeal 70166-06-25 Arkia International v. Nir Ephraim (November 7, 2025), which accepts the Magistrate's Court's ruling on this matter in Cell 37570-04-22 Lior Nordravsky v. Arkia International (April 22, 2025)).
To be precise; the defendant agreed to pay the passengers in exchange for presenting receipts, when there is no dispute that some of the passengers did not contact her at all as part of the exhaustion of proceedings and did not present receipts, and from the hearing it emerged, as stated, that those who did did receive a refund. I was also impressed by the testimony of the airport manager about her intention to indemnify, as well as from the document that was given upon the passengers' arrival in Israel, when it announced that the company would reimburse the passengers' expenses according to receipts that would be submitted. Despite this, some of the plaintiffs chose not to submit receipts to the defendant but to attach them only as part of the claim proceeding. They were asked why they did not submit a request for refunds supported by receipts, and they replied that in any case they intended to sue or that there was no cover for the mental anguish caused to them, or that they had lost faith or that they had no reason to do so. Thus, plaintiff No. 3, Ms. Orit Chava Leibowitz, as well as plaintiff No. 5, who in his testimony (p. 94) declared that he "does not bring the receipts to El Al." The plaintiff, Ms. Galit Rob Zeckler, also acted in a similar manner. These cases reflect a broader picture, whereby the plaintiffs did not attempt to exhaust the required proceedings against the defendant prior to the application to the court - as opposed to a sweeping demand for total compensation in the amount of approximately ILS 830,000 at the time of the claim, when an application for restitution for their expenses prior to filing the lawsuit would have led to a reduction in the relief they are demanding, in which case the dispute revolved around the expenses that were not recognized and whether they were not recognized by law. Her claim that this is at her discretion does not prejudice her intention to relate, since she has to check the authenticity of receipts and for what. As stated, if a passenger has spent on gifts or clothes that are not necessary for an extra day's stay, or for meals in luxury restaurants, etc., she must be indemnified in accordance with the real expenses. Thus, for example, plaintiff No. 14, Keren Dangoor, admitted when questioned why the reception stated 5 people when there were only two and paid $160 for the meal, that they were people who were not the plaintiffs or the flight passengers but a family, and later explained that she felt the need because they were accommodated (instead of a hotel), and the same applies to clothes in the amount of $219 or about $500, when there is no dispute that the clothes remained with the plaintiffs who purchased them, as emerged from their interrogation. Although two said that they purchased due to the cold in New York (for example, a passenger arrived from Mexico, where it was hot and was not prepared to stay in New York, which served only as a transit station to Israel), and the purchases made according to their prices were apparently also made with the intention that those purchases to their liking would remain with them after their return to Israel, and according to the Aviation Services Law, the defendant is not obligated to provide as part of assistance services. This, even though it was implied from her words that she did not stand by the thorn of iodine regarding receipts that were submitted to her or would have been submitted, but only towards those that raised such question marks (so that if it were a necessary matter, for example, such as underwear, where there is no more clean laundry, according to the defendant's conduct in reimbursement of expenses, she did not specifically determine the amounts of the reimbursement or for what - in relation to those who did contact and returned; Thus, for example, about the extension of insurance for Mr. Assaf Lev, and as Mr. Zamir testified, in many cases they do not shrink, and when asked if the hotel's invoice showed a sum of $500, did they pay more, he replied, "If they contacted, yes").
- However, I do not agree with the defendant's argument that receipts must be shown in order to receive a refund for food, for example, and otherwise, he will not receive any refund? Indeed, in the cross-examination, someone who was asked about the amount of expenses he stated did not match the receipts he presented and replied that he did not have all the receipts, asked why he did not mention this - not as a reason why not to refund, but because there was no match between the amount required and the supporting receipts, when on the face of it it seemed that he had attached all the receipts without Qualifying, all the more so it was an exact amount, including cents - so it is not impossible that she would have paid realistic compensation for this if she had been contacted (when she also offered a $300 discount for the next flight as global compensation beyond reimbursement of proven expenses). Even if in order to receive a refund it is necessary to prove an actual expense, when it comes to food, and there are also traveling plaintiffs who did mention this in the affidavit that they did not keep all the receipts, and as testified by the plaintiffs Ms. Bloch (p. 31, s. 32) and Mr. B.Rintzweig (p. 69, s. 33) and Ms. Orit Chava Leibowitz Nowitz testified - it is clear that they ate for two days (all the more so it is also a holiday eve for those who do observe tradition). When most of the purchases were counted or from kiosks in a way that also makes it difficult to keep all the receipts among their many documents and belongings and also that there will be no deletions, and just as the defendant claims that there is no dispute regarding the hotel when asked about invoices that were not presented, so there should be no dispute that they ate during those 36 hours, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to exempt the defendant as someone who is "in her custody" until her return to Israel, since their stay is due to the cancellation of the flight that she canceled. Whatever the reason. As it was ruled, "It is inconceivable that a person who is incapacitated as aforesaid will not be able to benefit from the assistance services, for the simple reason that he will save himself the purchase of drinks and food while waiting, and in any case he will not be able to demand restitution for money he did not spend. The duty to ensure the provision of assistance services is a duty that applies to the flight operator as a person with a deep pocket and as someone who controls the situation and is more knowledgeable about the details than the passenger, and towards all passengers equally, and it applies in real time and while waiting" (see small claim 41449-09-17 David Kadosh v. El Al Israel Airlines Ltd.) (February 5, 2018), para. 25).
In Class Action 56223-02-17 Hillel Akiva Barak v. El Al Israel Airlines in a Tax Appeal (May 15, 2022), it was ruled that "it is plain that the airline is the one that is supposed to provide assistance services to passengers whose flight was canceled in real time, and this is the default, but this is not always possible for various reasons... and in this case, as a rule, a passenger is entitled to request and receive from the airline the funds that he spent for assistance services that he was entitled to receive but did not receive" (emphasis not in the original - A.M., section 109).