Israel’s antitrust regulator has put El Al Israel Airlines under intense scrutiny, signaling its intention to impose a record fine of roughly 121 million shekels, around 39 million dollars, over what it calls excessive and unfair fare hikes during the first months of the Gaza war. For travelers, this is not just a story about corporate penalties. It raises urgent questions about how airlines behave in crises, what protections passengers really have when carriers become de facto monopolies, and whether future wartime or emergency travel to and from Israel will look any different as a result.
What Exactly Is El Al Accused Of?
The Israel Competition Authority has announced that it plans to declare El Al a monopoly on many routes to and from Israel during the period from October 7, 2023 through May 2024, and to levy the maximum administrative fine allowed under Israeli law. During those months, many foreign airlines sharply reduced or completely suspended flights to Tel Aviv due to security concerns and insurance costs, leaving El Al and a handful of smaller Israeli carriers operating a skeletal but vital air bridge.
Regulators say that in this vacuum El Al’s market share surged from around one fifth of all traffic before the war to more than 70 percent almost overnight, and consistently over 50 percent in the ensuing months. That dominant position, the authority argues, enabled the flag carrier to raise fares by an average of about 16 percent across economy and premium cabins, with some routes seeing increases of between roughly 6 and 31 percent, even as passengers had few or no realistic alternatives.
The Competition Authority’s position is that these fare hikes crossed the line from hardship pricing into what it calls excessive and unfair pricing under Israel’s competition law. It is a serious charge. The watchdog stresses that findings of excessive price gouging are used sparingly worldwide, and that such a case requires both a strong monopoly position and prices that are not reasonably justified by cost, risk, or the need to maintain essential services.
El Al, for its part, strongly rejects the allegations. The airline says that even if the regulator’s own figure of an average 16 percent increase is accepted, such a rise does not constitute excessive pricing given operational constraints, security costs, and the extraordinary conditions of wartime. It has vowed to fight both the proposed monopoly designation and the level of the fine in a formal hearing and in court if necessary.
How Did Wartime Conditions Create a Near Monopoly?
To understand why this case matters to travelers, it is important to grasp how quickly the market changed after the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. Within days, many global airlines suspended their Israel services entirely. Some cited security; others struggled with insurance and crew concerns. The result was a dramatic collapse in international capacity into and out of Ben Gurion Airport just as thousands of Israelis abroad were trying to return home and foreign nationals were trying to leave.
Into that gap stepped El Al, alongside smaller Israeli carriers Arkia and Israir. As Israel’s national airline, El Al has a unique combination of domestic political expectations and security capabilities, including hardened aircraft procedures and crews accustomed to operating in high-risk environments. That left it in a position to maintain and even expand operations while many foreign competitors stayed away for months.
Regulators now say that on 38 of the 53 routes El Al operated during the review period, including key long haul links such as New York, London, Paris and Bangkok, the airline functioned as a monopoly. Occupancy levels reportedly surged, with some routes to North America running at more than 90 percent load factors as demand outstripped limited supply.
For passengers, this translated into a very simple reality. If you needed to get into or out of Israel during those months, there was a high chance that El Al was either the only carrier flying your preferred route or the only airline that many travelers trusted not to cancel at the last minute. That dependency is at the core of the regulator’s argument that El Al had a special responsibility not to overcharge for what it describes as an essential service tied directly to freedom of movement during a national crisis.
Why the Fine Matters Even Before It Is Imposed
The proposed 39 million dollar penalty is not yet final. Under Israeli law, El Al is entitled to a full hearing in which it can challenge both the factual analysis and the legal conclusions of the Competition Authority. The regulator will then decide whether to confirm, reduce, or withdraw the fine. That process could take months and may well end up in the courts if the airline pursues an appeal.
Yet for travelers the signal is already clear. Israel’s competition watchdog is not only willing to intervene in airline pricing, it is prepared to use one of the harshest tools in its arsenal in response to conduct it views as exploitative during wartime. The proposed fine represents the maximum statutory penalty available, and officials have been unusually blunt in describing the fare increases as excessive and unfair.
The regulator has also framed freedom of movement as a fundamental right and stressed that under the extraordinary conditions of war this right took on heightened importance. That language matters. It suggests that in future conflicts or national emergencies, airlines that become de facto lifelines may be held to stricter standards than those that apply in normal commercial times, particularly if they enjoy monopoly power.
Even if El Al ultimately succeeds in reducing or overturning the fine, the case itself raises the bar for scrutiny of crisis-era pricing. Other carriers operating into conflict zones or disaster areas will be watching closely, as will consumer advocates and class action lawyers already pursuing separate suits alleging wartime price gouging by the airline.
What It Means for Prices on Future Flights to and from Israel
For travelers planning trips to Israel in the coming months and years, one key question is whether this enforcement push will translate into more moderate fares. The answer is likely to be nuanced. On the one hand, El Al now knows that regulators are willing to challenge sharp price increases when it holds a dominant position. That alone may act as a deterrent against aggressive pricing in future emergencies, particularly on routes where competition remains thin.
On the other hand, the underlying dynamics that led to high fares during the war have not disappeared. If a new security crisis or regional escalation once again prompts foreign airlines to suspend flights, supply would tighten rapidly. With aircraft and crews finite, late booking travelers would still face steep prices simply because demand far exceeds available seats, even if regulators are watching more closely.
In the near term, as more foreign carriers restore capacity and schedules normalize, competitive pressure should continue to soften prices on many routes. Travelers can expect more sale fares, mileage promotions, and a gradual return to prewar pricing structures, particularly on heavily contested corridors such as Tel Aviv to major European hubs and North America.
However, El Al’s strong financial performance during the war years, including record revenues and profits, underscores that the carrier has discovered just how lucrative a captive market can be. That may encourage management to defend higher baseline fare levels, arguing that security costs, insurance, and fleet investments justify a premium compared with competitors. For passengers, it will be important to compare options across airlines and alliances whenever they are available rather than assuming the national carrier is the only viable choice.
Practical Takeaways for Travelers Booking Israel Routes
From a traveler’s perspective, the El Al case is a reminder that pricing can change dramatically under stress and that legal protections, while important, are rarely immediate. Even if competition authorities later determine that fares were excessive, that does not automatically mean passengers will receive refunds or compensation. Administrative fines typically flow to the state treasury, not directly into the pockets of affected travelers.
To protect your budget on routes to and from Israel, especially in uncertain times, flexibility and advance planning remain the most powerful tools. Booking earlier, monitoring fare trends, and being open to alternative routings through regional hubs can all help mitigate price spikes. When multiple carriers are operating, it pays to look beyond El Al and consider European, North American, and regional airlines that may offer more aggressive pricing or more generous rebooking policies.
Travelers should also pay close attention to fare rules. During crises, the risk of schedule changes and cancellations can be high, even when airlines continue to operate. Fully flexible or semi flexible tickets cost more upfront but can be less painful if travel plans are disrupted by security alerts, airspace closures, or sudden carrier withdrawals.
For those already affected by wartime price surges, class actions and private legal claims may offer a path to redress, though such cases can take years to resolve. Consumer rights organizations in Israel have already backed efforts to seek compensation over alleged price gouging, and any future court rulings could shape how airlines structure fares in future conflicts.
Could This Case Change Airline Behavior in Global Crises?
The El Al proceedings have implications far beyond Israel. Around the world, airlines have faced criticism for steep prices during hurricanes, pandemics, political unrest, and sudden border closures. Regulators often struggle to balance the reality that flights are more expensive and complex to operate in high risk environments with public outrage over perceived exploitation when people are desperate to travel.
If Israel’s Competition Authority ultimately upholds a finding of excessive pricing tied to wartime monopoly power, it could become a reference case for other jurisdictions. Authorities in Europe, North America, and Asia may look more closely at how carriers price emergency evacuations, repatriation flights, or services in and out of conflict zones, particularly when those airlines enjoy dominant positions or state backing.
Airlines, in turn, may be pushed to adopt clearer internal guidelines on crisis pricing, documenting cost increases and capacity constraints more thoroughly so they can demonstrate that higher fares are grounded in operational realities rather than opportunism. Some may choose to cap price increases in extreme situations as part of corporate social responsibility policies, trading short term revenue for reputational stability.
For travelers, the practical implication is that public and regulatory tolerance for dramatic crisis era price hikes is likely to narrow. While high prices may never entirely disappear when demand vastly exceeds supply, scrutiny of how those prices are set, and who bears the burden, will almost certainly intensify.
Looking Ahead: Confidence, Competition, and Consumer Trust
The El Al fine, if confirmed, will not just be a financial penalty. It will be a test of how Israel balances the strategic importance of its national carrier with the need to protect consumers during the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Many of those who paid high fares during the war were reservists rushing home, families trying to reunite, and foreign visitors eager to leave a country under rocket fire. Their frustration has fueled both regulatory action and private lawsuits.
Rebuilding trust will require more than legal arguments. El Al will need to convince both regulators and the traveling public that its pricing practices in future crises will reflect a fair balance between commercial necessity and social responsibility. That may include more transparent communication about how fares are set, visible efforts to keep some seats affordable for urgent travel, and closer coordination with the state when it effectively serves as a bridge to the outside world.
For incoming tourists and business travelers, the broader outlook remains positive. As security conditions stabilize and foreign carriers fully restore service, Israel’s air market is likely to become more competitive again, with multiple airlines vying for passengers across key routes. In that environment, El Al will have to compete not only on safety and national loyalty, but also on price and service quality.
In the end, the case against El Al is a stark reminder that air travel is not just another commodity when borders feel fragile and flights are a lifeline. For travelers heading to or from Israel, staying informed, comparing options, and understanding your rights will be more important than ever as regulators, airlines and courts redraw the lines of what counts as fair pricing in a time of war.