Chaos at Ben Gurion: Who Is Actually Responsible for Stranded Passengers — and What Can Be Done Right Now?

By Adv. Asaf Amon, specialising in commercial litigation, class actions and aviation law

The severe disruptions recorded today at Ben Gurion Airport place thousands of passengers in a frustrating reality: cancelled or delayed flights, check-in processes halted, operational uncertainty, aircraft that are not taking off, and passengers who do not know whether to wait, return home, or find an alternative solution on their own.

In situations like these, the first question the public asks is: who is to blame, and who can be sued?

Legally, however, that is not necessarily the most important question. The practical question is: who owes the passenger something right now — a refund, a replacement flight, food, accommodation or compensation?

In most cases the answer does not begin with the Ministry of Transport, the workers’ committee or the Airports Authority. It begins with the airline or with the flight organiser.

The airline is the first address

The Aviation Services Law imposes direct obligations on the flight operator or the flight organiser towards the passenger. These obligations may apply even where the cause of the disruption is not within the airline’s direct control.

When a flight is cancelled, the passenger may be entitled, depending on the circumstances, to assistance services, to a refund of the consideration paid, or to a replacement ticket. In certain cases they may also be entitled to statutory monetary compensation.

Assistance services may include:

• Food and drink according to the length of the wait.
• Communication services.
• Hotel accommodation where an overnight stay is required.
• Transport between the airport and the hotel.
• Information and updates regarding the flight time and the alternative solutions.

It is important to stress: even if the airline argues that the event was caused by a strike or a shutdown, that does not mean all of its obligations towards the passenger disappear. The question of monetary compensation is a separate question from the question of assistance and refund.

In simple terms: the passenger may not in every case be entitled to the compensation set out in the law, but they may still have a right to a refund, a replacement flight or assistance services — depending on the type of event and its circumstances.

Does a strike exempt the airline?

Airlines tend to raise, almost automatically, the argument that this is a case of “extraordinary circumstances” or a “protected strike” justifying an exemption from paying compensation.

But “strike” is not a magic word.

To benefit from an exemption, the company may be required to show that this was indeed an event outside its control, and that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight or to reduce the damage caused to passengers.

Questions such as the following therefore need to be examined:

• When did the company learn of the disruptions?
• Did it update passengers in time?
• Did it require passengers to come to the airport even though it already knew the flight would not depart?
• Was an alternative flight offered within a reasonable time?
• Were food, accommodation and transport provided?
• Did the company refund passengers’ money without the need for a prolonged struggle?
• Could the passengers have been carried on another flight or via an alternative destination?

A company that made do with a general announcement, did not provide passengers with a response, or left them to deal alone with heavy expenses — may be exposed to further claims, beyond the question of statutory compensation.

In such a case, claims relating to breach of contract, lack of good faith, negligence, breach of statutory duty and pecuniary loss caused as a result of the company’s conduct may also be examined.

What happens when the passenger bought a holiday package?

Where the ticket was purchased as part of a holiday package or through an organiser, it is necessary to examine which party contracted with the passenger and what it undertook to provide.

The passenger should not have to accept responsibility being passed from one party to another. In appropriate cases it is possible to approach both the airline and the organiser or the travel agency, according to the structure of the transaction and the role each party played.

This is particularly important where the passenger purchased a flight, hotel, transfers and additional services together. Cancellation of the flight may bring consequential losses: a lost hotel night, a cancelled tour, lost tickets to an event, travel expenses, or the need to buy a new flight ticket at a high price.

In such cases the whole picture should be examined, rather than focusing only on the price of the original ticket.

Can the Airports Authority be sued?

The Airports Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages the airports in Israel. A claim against it is therefore not generally based on the Aviation Services Law, but on other legal causes of action — chiefly negligence, breach of statutory duty and at times also arguments drawn from administrative law.

That said, the mere existence of chaos at Ben Gurion is not enough to impose liability on the Authority.

To establish a claim, it will be necessary to point to a concrete failure, for example:

• A failure to prepare for an event that was foreseeable in advance.
• The absence of a reasonable emergency plan.
• Failure to provide essential information to passengers.
• Creating a false impression that the flight was expected to depart, even though the Authority or other parties knew there was no basis for this.
• Conduct that directly caused expenses or damage that could have been prevented.

Such a claim requires proving a duty of care, a breach of that duty, damage, and a causal connection between the conduct and the damage. This is a more complex legal route, and it is therefore not necessarily the fastest way for a passenger to obtain a refund for a cancelled flight.

In certain cases, however, broader questions may arise concerning the Authority’s responsibility for managing essential infrastructure, the way an operational decision was taken, or the way a crisis was managed.

And what about the Ministry of Transport?

The Ministry of Transport is a regulator, and not generally the party that sold the passenger the flight ticket or undertook to fly them to their destination.

A passenger seeking a refund or compensation for a cancelled flight will therefore not usually begin with a claim against the Ministry of Transport. The more direct address will be the airline or the flight organiser.

That said, in very exceptional cases it is possible to examine arguments concerning regulatory failure, absence of supervision, or an unreasonable failure to exercise authority. Such arguments require a significant factual foundation: it is not enough to argue that the event was severe — it must be shown that the Ministry of Transport knew or should have known of a real danger, that it held a relevant power, and that its failure to exercise that power caused the damage.

This is a complex route, and it is generally not the first route for a private passenger seeking swift relief.

Can the workers’ committee be sued?

Here too the answer is not clear-cut.

The right to strike is a recognised right, and the courts and tribunals are therefore careful about imposing personal or civil liability on employees and on employee representatives merely because a strike took place.

The central dispute concerning the legality of the strike is generally determined in the Labour Court, in proceedings between the employer, the State or the Authority and the workers’ organisation. In appropriate cases it is possible to seek an injunction or other relief limiting the organisational measures.

A civil claim by passengers against the workers’ committee or against particular employees would be considerably more complex. It would be necessary to examine, among other things:

• Whether this is a strike declared in accordance with the law.
• Whether advance notice was given as required.
• Whether the actions taken went beyond the bounds of a legitimate strike.
• Whether measures were taken that are not an integral part of the labour dispute.
• Whether a direct connection can be proved between the action and a particular loss to the passenger.

Therefore, although the public may see the workers’ committee as the party responsible for the disruption, legally a sense of public responsibility is not enough. A precise factual and legal foundation is required.

What should the passenger do now?

Before approaching a lawyer or filing a claim, it is advisable to proceed in an orderly way.

First, document everything:

• Flight tickets and booking confirmations.
• Cancellation or change notices.
• Screenshots of the departures board.
• Correspondence with the airline, the agent or the organiser.
• Receipts for food, hotel, taxis, replacement flights and additional expenses.
• A record of waiting times and of the information given to passengers.
• Evidence that the company required passengers to come to the airport despite knowing the flight was cancelled.

Second, write to the airline or the organiser. A written approach matters not only for the purpose of recovering the money, but also because it creates a record of the demand and of the company’s response.

The approach should set out:

• The flight number.
• The date of the flight.
• The type of disruption.
• The passengers affected.
• The expenses incurred.
• The relief sought: a refund, a replacement flight, reimbursement of expenses, assistance services or compensation.

Third, do not rush to sign a waiver or an agreement to close the claim before checking the full extent of your rights. A passenger is sometimes offered a future credit or a partial refund, even though in the circumstances a broader right may be available to them.

When is it worth approaching a lawyer?

Legal proceedings are not required in every case. Sometimes a correct and well-reasoned approach to the airline will lead to a swift arrangement.

That said, legal advice is worth considering where:

• The company rejects the demand without a substantive explanation.
• Significant expenses were incurred.
• A large number of passengers were affected in the same way.
• The company did not provide assistance services.
• Only a partial refund was offered.
• There is a concern of systematic conduct by the company.
• The event caused business loss, or loss that is not limited to the price of the ticket.
• There is a need to examine a group claim or a class action.

In the case of a large-scale event, it is particularly important to examine whether this is an isolated malfunction or a pattern of conduct. A gap between passengers who received full treatment and passengers who were left without a response may be legally significant.

The bottom line

The chaos at Ben Gurion raises weighty public, economic and legal questions. But for the individual passenger, the correct order of operations is usually clear:

Start with the airline or the organiser, document the loss, demand your rights in writing — and only afterwards examine whether a cause of action exists against additional parties.

The Airports Authority may be a possible target for a claim where a concrete failure can be identified. The workers’ committee may be at the centre of proceedings in the Labour Court if it emerges that the actions went beyond the lawful framework. The Ministry of Transport may be required to provide answers at the public and regulatory level, but it is generally not the direct address for obtaining compensation for a cancelled flight.

The difference between a passenger who gives up and a passenger who receives what they are owed sometimes lies in the small details: correct documentation, a timely approach, precise legal drafting, and an understanding of which party owes them a duty.

---

The content of this article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for an individual examination of the circumstances of the case.