Arkia Customer Appeals Court Ruling Over 18,000 NIS Repatriation Flight Dispute
An Israeli passenger has appealed to the District Court after Arkia airlines forced him to pay 23,295 NIS for 11 repatriation tickets following a flight cancellation during a military operation.
The District Court will soon consider an appeal filed by an Israeli customer against Arkia airlines. The passenger claims that after his family's return flight was canceled due to the military operation "Im Kolvi", the airline refused to provide a free alternative flight. Instead, Arkia allegedly forced him to purchase 11 new tickets for an emergency repatriation flight at a significantly higher price, resulting in a direct loss of nearly 18,000 NIS.
The appellant had purchased 11 round-trip tickets from Greece for his family, but the flight was canceled due to airspace closures during the military operation. Shortly after, when Arkia began operating emergency repatriation flights, the family was flown back to Israel. However, the customer claims that Arkia refused to recognize this as the "alternative flight" to which he was legally entitled free of charge, demanding instead that he repurchase the tickets for 23,295 NIS. The lawsuit focuses on the price difference of 17,959 NIS, representing the direct damage after receiving a partial refund for the original tickets.
The repatriation flight was scheduled for June 19, 2025, but was delayed to June 20, 2025, due to security conditions. Arkia covered the family's hotel and taxi expenses resulting from this delay.
Arkia's Defense and Small Claims Court Ruling
Arkia argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed, stating that it had fully refunded the canceled flight and covered the accommodation and travel expenses. The airline maintained that the repatriation flights were operated as emergency rescue missions under strict government guidelines and did not constitute standard "alternative flights." Arkia claimed that due to security constraints and limited capacity, it was impossible to offer free alternative seating.
Last month, the Kfar Saba Small Claims Court dismissed the passenger's lawsuit. The registrar ruled that the rescue flights operated under strict state emergency directives—including a reported limit of 50 passengers per flight—and could not be classified as regular commercial flights. The court stated:
"Under these circumstances, I do not believe that the repatriation flights operated under the emergency framework can be considered an 'alternative flight' as defined by law. These flights were operated under a unique government outline, subject to significant security and operational constraints. Therefore, Arkia could not have offered the plaintiff an alternative ticket of his choice free of charge."
The Appeal to the District Court
Following the ruling, the customer filed a request for leave to appeal to the District Court. In his appeal, he highlights the unique nature of his case compared to previous rulings cited by the lower court.
While prior cases involved passengers suing after purchasing tickets from competing airlines, in this instance, Arkia itself canceled the flight and then resold the seats to the same family on its own aircraft. The appellant also disputes Arkia's claim regarding the 50-passenger limit.
The customer clarified that he does not contest the initial cancellation or demand priority during the emergency:
"The dispute focuses on the point when Arkia was actually capable of flying the family but conditioned their boarding on purchasing 11 new tickets for 23,295 NIS. The applicant is not seeking exemplary damages, but only the direct financial loss of 17,959 NIS."
