In the margins, I will note that although I initially thought that a distinction should be made with respect to minors when, for example, two minors (among the plaintiffs 6-8) are known, in a manner that does recognize their entitlement to compensation, this is because the violation was committed and the law does not distinguish between an adult and a minor since the entitlement to benefits, including statutory compensation, and also the imposition of compensation, for example, in the event of a violation of the benefits, is granted to every "passenger who has been issued a flight ticket"; and the case law also applies this provision to minors accompanying their parents if the operator did not knowingly give him the benefits to which "every passenger" is entitled. In contrast to a minor for whom a ticket fare was not paid and there was no mention of a passenger under the age of two among the plaintiffs; However, this is to be taken into account with regard to the scope of the compensation, as was done with regard to the fact that even if they had known about the right to vote, it seems that they would not have chosen an alternative other than the one that was forced upon them. Since minors are dependent on their parents with regard to the ability to choose and exercise the choice for financial restitution, and it is clear that the minor is not deprived of the actual right to choose when he chooses his parents, it appears that this raises a difficulty when there are other families and the court cannot know which minor among the children, some of whom are over the age of 18 and traveled with their parents as a family, and this will create inequality. It seems that perhaps there is room to rule more for parents with minor children, taking into account that even the one who did request an early alternative flight was with children, something that theoretically if the right of choice were granted, then it would be precisely a family with children who would prefer to try to find an earlier flight independently due to the burden imposed on them due to the cancellation of the flight, and not just rely on the defendant's words in accordance with the call center in Israel because it was not found and tried in its own way, and in the egalitarian ruling, there is something to create a balance Between the two approaches. Therefore, the amount will be awarded equally to each of the plaintiffs.
- Before closing.
I have no doubt, even the slightest one, that the passengers were greatly distressed. The frustration is understandable, as is the feeling of helplessness in a foreign country, on the eve of a holiday, especially when it comes to a sweeping exemption that even if the airline has a certain contribution to the failure for which it is delayed, it is exempt from any compensation. The frustration was also clearly felt among their representatives, who fought for them and it was evident that he even took their matter as his personal matter. However, and as stated, even where the case gives rise to a sense of discomfort, this is the law and the role of the judge is to interpret and apply the law, with the judge presiding over the law deciding alone. This is while a provision of the law that comes out of the legislature's address is engraved on a book after there has been a discussion with the dealers on the one hand and the consumers on the other when they are acting in a team. They examine comparative law, hear different opinions, and after anchoring it according to the normative hierarchy (a law by the legislative branch or a regulation or procedure by the executive branch, some of which is approved by the legislative branch), the court will interpret and implement it. Authority and Authority within its Jurisdiction (see Application for Leave to Appeal 615/02 Anonymous v. Anonymous, 5762 (2) 108, 129-130, by the Honorable Justice Hendel).
- Everything is heard.
The defendant will pay the plaintiffs according to the sums awarded alongside each passenger. As for its violation regarding the failure to provide an alternative for the restitution of consideration, taking into account the considerations of deterrence and in order to prevent it from repeating its conduct for which it did not take responsibility and the burden is on it to prove otherwise, and even in the summaries it did not manage to lift the burden - it will be compensated in the sum of ILS 200 per passenger.