Shlomo Kagan (Plaintiff No. 9)
- In his statement of claim, he petitioned for reimbursement of expenses for the purchase of food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $821.77.
- In his affidavit, he said that he independently arranged for accommodation in a hotel after the flight manager made it clear to him that he had to take care of himself and stay at the Hyatt Hotel at a cost of $530.21, the cost of a taxi on an independent arrival was $54.26 to the hotel, and $82.57 to return to the airport. Buying warm clothes at a cost of $91.74, food expenses for $56.99 (meal on October 20, $5 and $9.53 - pizza and bagels, dinner on October 20 for $42.46). Incidentals: $6 subway rides.
- In his testimony, he stated that he did not contact El Al to receive reimbursement for expenses. He was familiar with El Al's letter regarding the possibility of receiving compensation subject to the sending of receipts, but chose not to contact the defendant on this matter (pp. 52-53 of the transcript). According to Mr. Levy's testimony (p. 118, s. 14, and paragraph 11 of his affidavit), they remained in the field until 3-4 a.m., and therefore they should be compensated according to the cost of a $15 voucher per person.
Taking into account the fact that he had only two meals, but on the other hand, he was an independent guest at the hotel and could have included breakfast, when he did not state that he did not keep receipts and that the purchase was beyond (as opposed to the fact that he described in his testimony the damages caused to him as a whole, beyond $300 in compensation as a reason for refusing to contact El Al in advance), the defendant will refund the plaintiff the sum of $739.
Sharon and Avivit Marciel (Plaintiffs Nos. 10-11):
- The statement of claim does not contain specific demands.
- In the affidavit, we were told by family members.
- From the testimony it emerged that they had seen the defendant's letter but decided not to contact a lawyer but to deal with the flight delay (pp. 65-67 of the transcript). It was not claimed that there were expenses and that receipts were not kept
Alternative Flight Ticket or Refund
- With regard to alternative flight tickets, according to Section 6(a)(2) of the Aviation Services Law, a passenger who has been issued a ticket for a canceled flight is entitled to receive one of two benefits from the flight operator or the organizer, at his option: refund or an alternative flight ticket. The plaintiffs claim that despite the provisions of the law imposing on the defendant an obligation to offer restitution or an alternative flight, the defendant arranged for them, without prior contact or choice on their part, an alternative flight after the end of the holiday. There is no dispute regarding the active duty imposed on the defendant to inform the passengers of their rights, and the final choice between receiving the refund of monetary consideration and an alternative flight is in the hands of the passenger whose flight was canceled. This is not a decision left to the flight operator.
- Alon Lavie, Head of the Control Division, testified on behalf of the defendant that he was aware that there were attempts on behalf of the company to find alternative flights for some of the passengers, and although some of these attempts were successful, passengers were also transferred to a United flight. (p. 16 of the transcript, lines 18-25). In addition, in paragraph 19 of Ms. Yaffa Botnauser's affidavit she noted that she was indeed offered alternative flights, but when she arrived at the counter, no real answer was given to this issue (p. 33 of the transcript, lines 11-15). In addition, the witness Mr. Grobstein testified (p. 50 of the transcript, lines 12-13) that if he had been offered an alternative flight, he would have taken it. In the testimony of Avi Zamir on behalf of the defendant, he initially stated that he did not know whether the passengers were given the choice between monetary compensation and an alternative flight (p. 161 of the transcript, lines 17-25). Later, the witness Guy Radomsky, on behalf of the defendant, testified that he did not remember which of the passengers was given the option of choosing between restitution and the alternative flight (p. 180 of the transcript, lines 24-31), despite his statement in his affidavit submitted after the filing of the claim (which is not supported by the report he filled out on the day of the flight cancellation and in the appendix attached in Hebrew that an alternative of restitution was offered - a claim that the defendant also neglected in its summaries, as will be clarified), but added (p. 182 of the transcript, lines 7-8) that the company had managed to find an alternative flight for the Yaakobi family, a mother and her two children, while the report that was filled out in real time also noted that there were no alternative flights. From the evidentiary material placed before me, it appears that the defendant did act to locate alternative flights, and it is not impossible that she did not succeed even though she did not present efforts to do so (she checked and relied only on the words of Sagi Agranat, the deputy of the call center in Israel - where she checked, for example, and what they answered her, but it seems that it is sufficient to suffice with a report that described in real time that they did try to examine and the evidence that there was someone who did receive an alternative flight earlier, although in the end it was not implemented for reasons related to the foreign company). Where we will see the flight that was scheduled for the holiday under the defendant's operation as one that could constitute an alternative flight, given that it is a flight distance that does not normally depart several flights a day to Israel, and therefore, it is not impossible that even if it had found an alternative flight, the passengers on it would have arrived at the destination at more or less the same time, since it is not obligated to provide an alternative flight for the next hour or two and could have offered it for the next day - it still appears from the material placed before me that it was not offered at the same time as the examination of the flight The alternative is monetary compensation as a full alternative, as stipulated in the law. The plaintiffs are in fact not arguing against not offering an alternative flight, but against not offering to refund the financial consideration, and then they would in fact bother themselves and look for an alternative flight, but if the alternative flight was a day or two later, when it could have provided an alternative flight with a stopover, let's not forget that the direct flight is about 10-12 hours (in which case there is no actual "assistance" except for the offer itself). Thus, it is not impossible that they would prefer a direct flight using it the next day - not necessarily because of the hassle, but because this does not necessarily significantly reduce the time in practice. This is in view of the fact that section 3(a)(3) of the Law stipulates with respect to a passenger in respect of whom there is a qualifying cause (where a qualifying cause for receiving the benefits defined in section 1 exists in relation to passengers due to the cancellation of the flight) that the alternative flight ticket must be "under conditions as similar as possible to the terms of the flight ticket originally issued to him and at the earliest possible date" (emphasis not in the original - A.M.), but if there is no alternative of a direct flight to Israel on the same day, it is available in terms of seats for 280 passengers (since the defendant's alternative direct flight took place the next day) and the only possible alternative is to fly through foreign companies, including through Europe, for example - because then what good will the Sages do in their regulation? Thus, they were also able to refuse the alternative flight at the end of the holiday and ask for their money back as stated in section 6(a)(2) of the Law, and they did not point to other possible alternatives that existed at the time to arrive in Israel in such a way that it can be argued that there were other alternative flights (see and compare: the Paz Dor El case above) other than the one that was proved to be arranged for the Yaacobi family and taught them to make a sincere effort to find an earlier alternative. And if it did find an alternative flight and did not find it for others when it was about 300 passengers, given that the number of flights to Israel by foreign companies is also limited per day, it is difficult to claim that it did not offer an alternative flight at the time of the alternative flight in which the passengers boarded - even though it was about 36 hours later (as stated in the summaries - section 24.6). This, when in fact it is a matter of the following day (dispersing them at one night on the 20th of the month and flying a flight on the 21st of the month), so that an alternative flight to this alternative would not necessarily have helped, as stated, and it certainly would not have been possible to provide everyone with an alternative flight for the 20th of the month when its flight departed on the 21st of the month. The plaintiffs' argument is that they were in fact forced to take an alternative flight instead of restitution, when for the most part the argument is the opposite, for example, in emergency situations, that the passengers were forced to receive a refund without any offer of an alternative flight - raises a difficulty because the significance of receiving the monetary consideration is for the purpose of locating an alternative flight themselves, which in the aforesaid circumstances would not have been of any use when they were the ones who wanted to return home as quickly as possible. All the more so, as part of their lawsuit, they complained about the very fact of self-financing instead of receiving hotels without waiting time and at a good level, so it can be assumed that they would not have chosen the option of restitution. However, there is no dispute that this was not proposed. In its summaries as well, the defendant does not claim that she made a suggestion, but rather claims that the very act of boarding the plane the next day constitutes a chosen alternative, even though it was not preceded by a selection process, certainly not on the part of the passenger as aforesaid.
In this regard, I will refer again to the defendant's claim in its summaries that the very fact that they boarded an alternative flight chose this option and therefore cannot claim financial restitution. In this statement, when it does not positively state in its summaries that it did indeed offer a financial refund, but only refers to the possibility of examining an alternative flight to the alternative one it provided the day after the original flight, it indicates that this was not proposed at all. The legislature demanded in detail the benefits that the operator offer an alternative flight or refund, according to the passenger's choice. Once the defendant presents that she tried to locate an alternative flight and was unsuccessful except for the family mentioned, and once she presents the flight she operated the day after the original flight that was canceled as an alternative flight. And what is your soul? If she couldn't find an alternative flight, did Shabbat offer a reward? Nope. If the flight that operated the next day is the alternative flight, and therefore when they board it, they are silenced from claiming that they were not offered a refund because they chose to board the flight - was they offered a refund as an alternative? Nope. A place where no alternative was offered, because then it is not a choice. Certainly not the passenger's. Even if it can be assumed that no one would have chosen the option of refunding consideration in the situation in which the passengers found themselves, when a flight was scheduled for the next day by the defendant and it is a flight distance of many hours from Israel and the frequency of flights is so low that a suitable alternative can be made the next day and in any case they fly the next day - this does not negate the fact that the customer was not offered the option of refund and the burden is on the operator to offer and not wait for any of the passengers to ask. Therefore, it did not fulfill its obligation in this matter.