Israel’s already fraught air travel landscape is facing a new flashpoint, as Israel’s Competition Authority moves to impose a record NIS 121 million financial penalty on national carrier El Al over its wartime fare practices. The proposed sanction, announced on February 8, 2026, would mark the maximum fine permitted under Israeli law and intensifies scrutiny just as travel corridors between Israel, the United States, and France remain highly sensitive, capacity constrained, and politically charged.
Regulator Targets El Al’s Wartime Fares
The Israel Competition Authority has notified El Al that it intends to declare the airline a monopoly on flights into and out of Israel from October 7, 2023, through the end of May 2024, and to levy a NIS 121 million penalty for what it describes as “excessive and unfair” pricing during that period. Investigators concluded that the carrier used its dominant position in a time of national emergency to maintain unusually high fares at a moment when air travel was an essential lifeline for citizens, residents, and foreign visitors caught in the conflict zone.
According to official findings reported by Israeli business and travel outlets, El Al’s share of passengers to and from Israel surged from about 20 percent before the Hamas attacks on October 7 to more than 70 percent within days, remaining above 50 percent through the first months of the war. With most foreign airlines suspending service to Tel Aviv over security concerns, El Al operated as a de facto monopoly on a majority of its routes, including key links to New York and Paris.
During this exceptional window, average ticket prices on El Al flights rose by roughly 16 percent, with increases ranging from 6 to 31 percent on specific routes. Regulators say they also identified flights departing with empty seats in economy class where fares had nevertheless been raised by about 25 percent, bolstering the claim that the carrier was not simply responding to capacity constraints or higher operating costs.
The proposed fine remains subject to a formal hearing process, at which El Al is expected to challenge both the methodology and the legal basis for the monopoly and excessive pricing determinations. Still, the Competition Authority’s move sets the stage for a precedent-setting enforcement action that could reshape how airlines are allowed to price in times of war or national crisis.
El Al’s Defense and Record Profits
El Al has rejected the allegations in unusually forceful terms. The airline insists that its wartime pricing strategy was legal, justified, and in line with the commercial realities of operating in a high-risk theater. Company statements carried by Israeli and international outlets argue that a 16 percent average fare increase on economy and premium cabins cannot be regarded as “excessive pricing,” especially amid surging demand, complex security logistics, and sharply higher insurance and operating costs.
Executives point out that the airline continued flying into and out of Israel when almost every major foreign carrier had grounded operations. Maintaining a broad route network out of Ben Gurion Airport required repositioning aircraft, staffing crews willing to work under wartime conditions, and absorbing fluctuating fuel and insurance premiums. El Al contends that regulators have not fully accounted for these pressures in their economic models.
At the same time, El Al’s financial performance during and after the first phase of the Gaza war has drawn intense public scrutiny. The carrier recorded all-time high revenues in 2024, reportedly in the vicinity of 3.4 billion dollars, an increase of roughly one third over the previous year. Net profit climbed to around 545 million dollars, with load factors on some North American routes reaching the mid-90 percent range at a time when El Al held more than 97 percent market share on key U.S. connections.
Critics say these results underscore the extent to which the airline benefited from its dominant position. Consumer groups and plaintiffs in parallel civil actions argue that the company exploited a captive market rather than simply covering its costs. El Al’s leadership counters that profitability was the outcome of extraordinary operational resilience and that penalizing it now sends a damaging signal to airlines considering continued service to Israel during future crises.
Class Actions and Consumer Backlash
The looming regulatory penalty is not El Al’s only legal exposure. In June 2025, a sweeping class action was filed in Israeli court on behalf of passengers who flew during the war period, accusing the carrier of systematically exploiting the conflict for profit. The lawsuit alleges that El Al orchestrated deliberate price manipulation that generated “unprecedented windfall profits” and claims damages of roughly 600 million shekels, far in excess of the Competition Authority’s proposed administrative sanction.
Supported by economic analysis from former senior officials at the Competition Authority, the plaintiffs argue that fare hikes did not serve any legitimate economic purpose such as expanding supply or improving service. Instead, the complaint portrays the price increases as a pure extraction of consumer surplus from travelers with no meaningful alternatives. The legal theory goes beyond traditional antitrust violations and seeks to establish a clear duty for monopolists to refrain from profiteering during wartime and national emergencies.
El Al has responded that it operated within the law and that its pricing reflected real-world constraints. The company emphasizes that the class action has yet to be certified and that it intends to mount a vigorous defense in court. Still, the combination of civil litigation and regulatory enforcement has galvanized public debate in Israel about the boundaries of acceptable corporate conduct when citizens are trying desperately to enter or leave a country under fire.
For travelers, the controversy has direct financial and emotional resonance. Many Israelis and dual nationals paid thousands of dollars above their usual budgets to evacuate family members or return for reserve duty, only to see subsequent reports of record airline profits. International passengers, including American and French citizens with ties to Israel, likewise faced sticker shock as flights disappeared from fare search engines and the remaining seats on El Al soared in price.
US and French Travelers Caught in the Crossfire
The regulatory action against El Al comes at a sensitive moment for air travel between Israel, the United States, and France. These corridors are among the most heavily trafficked long-haul routes for Israel, linking Tel Aviv with large diaspora communities, business hubs, and essential transit gateways in New York, Paris, and other major cities. When foreign airlines pulled out after October 7, 2023, the ripple effects were immediate and profound for U.S. and French travelers.
In the early weeks of the conflict, carriers including United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Air France, Lufthansa, and British Airways suspended service to Tel Aviv amid rocket fire and evolving security advisories. For travelers based in North America and Western Europe, this effectively left El Al as the only regularly operating option to enter or exit Israel. French and American passport holders reported scrambling for seats on remaining flights, often accepting circuitous routings or last-minute tickets priced far above pre-war norms.
Even as some U.S. carriers gradually resumed limited operations during 2024, service patterns remained volatile, with frequent suspensions as fighting flared in Gaza or along Israel’s northern border. By contrast, Air France and several other European airlines have continued to delay a full return to the Israeli market, with some public guidance suggesting that regular service may not normalize until late 2025 or beyond. This uneven recovery has reinforced El Al’s central role in connecting Israel to both the United States and France.
The result is that American and French travelers are deeply entangled in the fallout from Israeli regulatory decisions. Any changes to El Al’s pricing policies, route network, or capacity in response to fines or legal judgments will reverberate across transatlantic travel planning. For now, passengers booking between Tel Aviv, New York, and Paris must navigate a patchwork of limited foreign services, occasionally high fares, and lingering uncertainty about schedule stability.
Security, Capacity and the Ethics of Wartime Pricing
The El Al case is forcing regulators, airlines, and passengers in Israel, the United States, and France to confront a difficult question: How should airfares be set when a country is at war and physical exits are scarce? Airlines and economists generally argue that higher prices in high-demand, low-capacity situations can help ration seats to those who value them most, while providing incentives to add capacity where possible. Consumer advocates respond that such logic breaks down when travelers are fleeing violence or must return under national duty.
From October 2023 to May 2024, Israel’s outbound and inbound demand shifted from tourism and business trips to emergency journeys, family reunifications, and military mobilization. At the same time, security risks to aircraft and crews increased significantly. El Al’s defenders say these conditions made flying to and from Israel an inherently premium service, justifying higher fares. They also point out that the airline refrained from canceling routes that might have been commercially unattractive absent elevated prices.
The Competition Authority’s analysis takes a different view. By comparing pre-war and wartime prices across dozens of routes and controlling for costs and load factors, regulators concluded that a significant share of the increase could not be explained by fundamentals, especially on flights that departed with unfilled seats. In their telling, this was less a reflection of risk and more an exertion of short-term market power in a context where passengers had little choice.
For U.S. and French regulators, the episode may become a case study in how other jurisdictions should treat dominant carriers in future conflict zones. While the fine itself is an Israeli domestic matter, American and European competition authorities are closely watching how concepts like “excessive pricing” are applied to airlines during emergencies. The outcome could inform future guidelines or investigations if similar patterns emerge on transatlantic or trans-Mediterranean routes impacted by war or political upheaval.
Route Competition, New Entrants and the Path Ahead
Even as El Al battles the regulator, Israel is quietly laying groundwork to diversify its long-haul connectivity and reduce dependence on a single carrier. In recent weeks, government approvals have been granted for Arkia and Israir to begin flying to the United States, using leased widebody aircraft operated with foreign crews. While their planned schedules remain modest compared with El Al’s, the move signals a strategic push to inject competition onto critical transatlantic routes.
For travelers between Israel and the United States, the arrival of additional Israeli carriers could, over time, help ease prices and improve resilience if security conditions again cause foreign airlines to reduce service. Whether similar steps will be taken on routes linking Israel to France remains to be seen, but aviation analysts point to Paris as a prime candidate for more diverse operator participation once demand stabilizes and geopolitical risks recede.
Foreign carriers also retain a powerful role in shaping the future landscape. United and Delta’s cautious return to Tel Aviv shows that American airlines can reenter the market under tight safety protocols, while the continued absence of some European flag carriers underscores how sensitive corporate boards remain to perceived exposure in the region. The longer major brands such as Air France stay away from Ben Gurion Airport, the more room there is for El Al and its domestic rivals to consolidate their position.
For El Al, the regulatory process could have significant strategic implications. A confirmed NIS 121 million fine would not cripple the airline financially, given recent profits, but it could constrain investment plans or accelerate efforts to reframe its brand from wartime profiteer to indispensable national bridge. The outcome of the class actions and the Competition Authority hearing will influence how aggressively El Al grows capacity to North America and Europe, including the United States and France, in the coming years.
What It Means for Travelers Planning Israel–US–France Trips
For travelers, particularly those planning complex itineraries that span Israel, the United States, and France, the unfolding saga offers both caution and opportunity. In the short term, fares on nonstop links between Tel Aviv and major hubs such as New York and Paris are likely to remain higher than pre-2023 norms, reflecting lingering security premiums, constrained capacity, and ongoing legal uncertainty. However, the prospect of new entrants and regulatory pressure on dominant pricing could gradually temper the most acute spikes.
American travelers connecting via Paris to or from Tel Aviv still face a fragmented network, as not all European carriers have resumed operations. While some U.S. airlines have reinstated limited Tel Aviv service, flight schedules can change quickly in response to developments on the ground. Passengers booking months in advance should be prepared for potential rerouting and keep a close eye on fare rules and refund policies.
French travelers, including those with family or business ties in Israel or the United States, must likewise navigate an evolving puzzle of available routes. The absence or partial return of certain French and European airlines to Tel Aviv means that El Al and a handful of foreign carriers dominate capacity on the Paris–Tel Aviv axis. If regulators succeed in imposing a significant penalty and setting stricter expectations around wartime pricing, it could nudge carriers to adopt more transparent and restrained fare strategies in future disruptions.
Ultimately, the El Al case highlights the fragile intersection of aviation, geopolitics, and consumer rights. As Israel’s Competition Authority pushes to define the limits of acceptable pricing in times of war, and as air corridors linking Israel with the United States and France remain under close scrutiny, travelers will continue to feel the practical impact in their wallets and their travel plans. Whether this moment leads to a more resilient and fairer market or simply a new equilibrium of higher-cost, higher-risk flying will depend on the legal decisions now looming and the strategic choices airlines make in response.