A recent appellate decision reinforces that cancelling a flight is not enough — carriers must proactively present rebooking options or face statutory damages

By Eyal Doron, S. Horowitz, Israel 

Executive Summary

In Gabso et al. v. Israir Aviation and Tourism Ltd. (RTA (Central) 57336-01-26, decided June 9, 2026), the Israeli District Court (Central Division) held that an airline that cancels a flight bears an active duty to inform passengers of their statutory right to choose between a full refund and an alternative flight. Merely notifying passengers that their flight has been cancelled – without presenting the available options – constitutes a breach of the Israeli Aviation Services (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellation or Change of Conditions) Law, 5772-2012 (the “Law“). The Court awarded exemplary damages of NIS 750 (approx. USD 210) per passenger under Section 11 of the Law, plus litigation costs.

Factual Background

Five passengers booked round-trip flights with Israir from Tel Aviv to Zanzibar, departing November 12, 2024, and returning November 19, 2024. On October 28, 2024 – more than 14 days before departure – Israir sent an email notifying the passengers that the return flight had been cancelled, stating it was “unable to offer an alternative” and that a monetary refund would be processed. As a consequence, the outbound flight was cancelled as well. The passengers made repeated attempts – by email and through the airline’s online portal – to request that Israir either reinstate the outbound flight or find an alternative return flight. None of these inquiries received a response. Notably, the outbound flight ultimately operated as scheduled, meaning the passengers could have travelled had they been allowed to board.

The Legal Question

The central issue was whether Israir satisfied its obligations under the Law by sending a generic cancellation notice – which included only a hyperlink to the statutory text – without actively informing the passengers of their right to choose between a refund and a rebooking. A secondary question was whether the passengers’ failure to cite specific statutory provisions in their small-claims pleading precluded them from raising this argument on appeal.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court ruled in the passengers’ favor on both issues. First, it rejected the airline’s “expansion of pleadings” objection, holding that under Israeli procedural rules a claimant need only plead the supporting facts, not the specific legal provisions, and that the passengers had in fact raised the substance of their argument throughout the proceedings.

On the merits, the Court relied heavily on the Israeli Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arkia International v. Bonderevsky (RPA 17685-01-26, June 4, 2026), which established that airlines owe passengers an active notification duty regarding their right to choose between a refund and an alternative flight under Sections 3(a)(3) and 6(a)(2) of the Law. The Court found that Israir’s conduct was particularly egregious: it failed to present the choice, failed to provide a document detailing the passengers’ rights, and failed to respond to their inquiries – despite those inquiries being made through the very channels Israir itself required.

Implications for Airlines

This decision, read together with the Supreme Court’s Bonderevsky ruling, sends a clear signal to carriers operating in or into Israel: a bare cancellation notice does not discharge statutory obligations. Airlines must (1) proactively present passengers with the choice between a refund and rebooking; (2) provide a clear, reader-friendly document explaining their rights — a mere hyperlink to statutory text is insufficient; and (3) respond to passenger inquiries in a timely manner. Failure to do so may expose carriers to exemplary damages under Section 11, particularly where, as here, multiple duties are breached simultaneously.

Upcoming Events