In September 2026, an Israeli District Court certified two class actions against Arkia and Air India. The proceedings concern alleged breaches of the Aviation Services Law (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellation or Change of Conditions), 5772-2012 (the “Aviation Services Law”), including the obligation to offer alternative flights when flights are delayed or canceled.
- The decisions have potentially far-reaching implications for all airlines operating in Israel, both Israeli and foreign, and also address airlines’ obligations during wartime and military operations.
- In the Arkia case (Class Action No. 26640-08-23, Gabay v. Arkia Israeli Airlines Ltd.), the claimants alleged that Arkia breached the Aviation Services Law by failing to proactively offer replacement flight tickets to passengers whose flights had been canceled or delayed, offering refunds instead. As a result, passengers had to purchase replacement tickets themselves at full price, sometimes at a substantially higher cost than their original tickets. The court accepted this argument, holding that airlines have an affirmative obligation to offer passengers whose flights have been canceled or delayed by more than five hours a choice between a refund and a replacement flight ticket. The court also noted, in passing, that this obligation remained in force during Operation Rising Lion, the military operation against Iran.
- In the Air India case (Class Action No. 43877-05-24, Shreibman et al. v. Air India Limited), the court certified a class action concerning Air India flights canceled between April 13 and May 16, 2024, following Iran’s missile attack on Israel, which prompted the airline to suspend all flights to and from Israel. The court held that Air India had breached the Aviation Services Law by failing to provide affected passengers with assistance services (food and beverages, accommodation, transportation and communication services) or offer them replacement flight tickets.
- Importantly, in both proceedings, the court left open the question of the extent to which airlines must arrange replacement flights with other carriers and cover any fare difference. In this context, it is worth recalling the District Court’s ruling in Request for Leave to Appeal No. 5621-06-25, Virnik v. Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (June 10, 2025), which held that where an airline has no available alternative flight of its own to offer, it is not required to arrange a replacement ticket with another airline.
- Key takeaways from the decisions:
- The court held that the obligation to provide assistance services (food and beverages, accommodation, transportation and communication services) to passengers whose flights have been canceled continues to apply in wartime, unlike the entitlement to statutory compensation, which may be excluded in such circumstances;
- The “Swords of Iron” temporary provision does not exempt airlines from these obligations. The court clarified that the temporary provision enacted following the Swords of Iron war (Aviation Services Law (Amendment No. 2 and Temporary Provision – Swords of Iron), 5785-2025) did not disapply the obligation to provide a refund or a replacement flight ticket, at the passenger’s election, or (as held in the Air India case) the obligation to provide assistance services, even during the emergency periods specified in the provision.
- The court did not specifically determine the extent of assistance services required during a prolonged airspace closure that necessitates assistance over an extended period. Although the decisions address wartime circumstances, each case must be assessed on its own facts, subject to the provisions and exceptions of the law.
- The decisions focus on airlines’ obligations to offer replacement flight tickets and provide passenger assistance, highlighting the significant potential exposure of airlines operating in Israel on these issues. Accordingly, airlines should review the notices they send to passengers in the event of flight cancellations or delays to ensure that they clearly and fully explain the right to choose between a replacement ticket and a refund. Airlines should also maintain documented policies and internal procedures addressing these obligations.
- It is important to emphasize that both proceedings remain pending. The decisions were issued at the preliminary class-certification stage and do not constitute final determinations on the merits of the claims.
- We would be pleased to assist in assessing the implications of these decisions, updating internal procedures and providing legal advice as needed.
This publication is provided as a general service to the firm’s clients and friends and does not constitute a substitute for specific legal advice. We do not recommend taking action based on the information above without obtaining legal advice from qualified professionals, based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
