While the test under section 6(e)(1) of the law requires a flight operator to prove two cumulative conditions in order to receive protection that exempts it from paying statutory compensation, including the requirement to "be precise" and specify what actions were taken on its behalf, including the actions of the technicians and the provision of explanations for malfunctions, this is not the case where it is protected by the legislature by virtue of section 6(e)(3) of the Law, As will be explained below.
- The original flight date that was canceled was fixed for October 19, 2019, Saturday night of Hoshana Rabba (according to the appendix attached to the statement of defense), at 23:25. The landing date was set for October 20, 2019, Sunday, the eve of the eighth assembly. The beginning of the holiday in Israel according to the fixed time indicated in the statement of defense: 17:41. The original landing time in Israel was scheduled for 16:50 Israel time. 10.2019, Monday, the end of Yom Tov (according to Halacha, this is the end of the first Yom Tov of Shmini Atzeret abroad and the second night of Simchat Torah abroad, when in Israel it is the night of the festival and as indicated in the appendix attached to the statement of defense and affidavits, also according to the Ministry of Religious Services, which is relied on as a certificate, October 22, 2019 is "Isru Chag", the day after each of the three pilgrimages, This is known as the second Yom Tov of the Exiles - which adds to each Yom Tov an additional day for those who celebrate abroad outside of the Land of Israel since the days of Chazal, with the exception of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, which are celebrated two days in Israel as well, in such a way that the date of the end of the three festivals abroad is different from the date in Eretz Yisrael). The alternative flight was scheduled for October 21, 2019 at 19:15, about half an hour after the departure of the first Yom Tov according to New York time. In other words, while in Israel the eve of the holiday was on the 20th of October and the two holidays were celebrated together on Monday 21.10 (Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah) so that the eve of the holiday was on the 20th of October - abroad Shmini Atzeret began on Sunday evening 20.10, ended on Monday evening, 21.10, and then the eve of Simchat Torah starting on Monday evening, 21.10, the eve of the second Yom Tov of the exiles, and the Simchat Torah exit on Tuesday evening. 22.10.
In our case, there is no dispute that the holiday begins according to Israeli time, 50 minutes after the time of landing. There is also no dispute that the passengers were taken off the plane after about an hour and a half, even two hours (since they claim that they were given the notice after two hours). Therefore, it has been proven that the exception applies. Despite all the difficulty in the matter, although on the face of it the defendant has no interest in canceling a flight but rather in holding flights as scheduled, as well as the economic considerations, inter alia, not to cancel long-haul flights and the consequences of canceling and waiting longer for an alternative flight, on the costs involved, as well as a designated pilot for the long-haul flights and a corresponding crew and adapted planes - it is possible and damaging to the image of someone who markets itself as a Sabbath observant in relation to a designated passenger audience from the broader systemic perspective (and as she noted in the framework of a discussion in the Economic Affairs Committee, It is also necessary to note that 25% of its customers observe Shabbat) tip the scales to cancel the flight under considerations of profit versus loss, cost versus benefit, certainly if it is subject to procedures that obligate it on the normative hierarchy, and all the more so it holds the funds of the clause that exempts it from paying statutory compensation in a way that does not endanger it from doing so. However, in any case, and despite the difficulty of such a matter, it does not need to prove in practice that it did everything in its power to prevent the cancellation of the flight. There is no need to examine what is the cause of the breakage in the luggage compartment and whether it could have been discovered earlier, when the Aviation Services Law does not examine negligence as a causal connection to the damage in a way that provides compensation since the exclusion is statutory, regardless of the question of why and why the flight was delayed when at the end of the day it was not the delay that caused the flight cancellation because 50 minutes or an hour and a half or two hours or not even three hours will not lead to the cancellation of the flight in itself on a weekday. Rather, the exception states that the airline canceled the flight in order to avoid desecration of the Sabbath or holiday.