Regulator to fine El Al for price gouging

The Israel Competition Authority has completed its economic and legal investigation to determine whether El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. (TASE:ELAL) exploited its monopoly on routes, mainly to North America and East Asia, during the war.

No decision has yet been made on whether to impose sanctions, but the direction is toward a financial sanction, the amount of which has not yet been set. The maximum fine that the Competition Authority may impose on the company is NIS 118 million.

The next stage will be a letter of intent to charge, followed by a hearing, during which El Al will be able to present arguments that will lead, if necessary, to a cut in the fine. Only then will the final decision be made on the amount of the fine.

The calculation of the fine is based on several parameters, including the company’s financial cash flow, the severity of the violation, its duration and its repetition, so that the final amount of the fine may be lower than the amount initially presented.

Complex economic and legal examination

The Competition Authority examined El Al’s position in the aviation market over a long period of time, against the backdrop of the exceptional reduction in competition after the outbreak of the war and the wave of flight cancelations by foreign airlines.

The investigation focused on whether the terms for defining El Al as a monopoly were actually met on certain routes, primarily the routes to North America and East Asia, where it was at times the only carrier operating from Israel.

The Competition Authority stressed that this was a complex economic and legal examination over time and was not based on a specific situation.

According to professional sources, the reason why the Competition Authority did not rush to declare El Al a monopoly also stemmed from the dynamic nature of the aviation market during the period of emergency. Flight cancelations sometimes occurred within days or weeks, and an official declaration of a monopoly could have been unnecessary if competition had resumed shortly afterwards.

Competition law was also originally designed to deal with the exclusion of competitors from the market, and less with price increases resulting from sharp changes in supply and demand.

The Competition Authority noted that even without a formal declaration of a monopoly, the law allows for enforcement measures to be taken if it is found that a company with significant market power has charged unfair prices. Accordingly, the investigation into El Al’s case continued, and at its conclusion, the question of whether there had been a violation of the law and whether there was a need to take regulatory measures was to be examined.

RELATED ARTICLES

“Restrained pricing policy”

El Al insists that the pricing policy adopted during the war was restrained and controlled, and was intended to provide a response to an unprecedented aviation emergency. The company stressed that after October 7, a policy of fare restrictions was implemented, ceiling fares were set for some destinations, and the supply of flights to nearby destinations was increased as much as possible, to allow Israelis to leave the country and return to it.

El Al also claimed that some of the high fares were due to last-minute bookings and the lack of availability in economy class, and not from a proactive change in pricing policy; and that early planning and advance booking made it possible to buy tickets at lower prices throughout the period.

According to the same pricing policy, El Al’s one-way fares in economy class ranged: for the Eastern Mediterranean, including Athens, Larnaca, and Paphos, from $150 to $469. For Eastern Europe, such as Bucharest, Prague, and Budapest, prices ranged from $158 to $637. For Western Europe, such as Rome, Munich and Barcelona, prices ranged from $259 to $659; and for Paris and London prices ranged from $353 to $880. For East Asia, which includes Bangkok, Phuket and Tokyo, prices ranged from $770 to $1,689; while for North America, including New York and Los Angeles, prices ranged from $799 to $1,900.

El Al: No fault in conduct

El Al responded: “El Al’s offices have not yet received a notification from the Competition Authority. El Al is careful to always act in accordance with all legal provisions, including competition laws. We are convinced that there is no fault in the company’s actions, and the matter will be presented in an orderly way to the Competition Authority.

“Throughout the entire war period, El Al acted beyond what was required by law, out of a sense of solidarity and commitment to the traveling public in Israel. The company will continue to cooperate with the relevant authorities and present its position in full.”

Published by Globes, Israel business news – en.globes.co.il – on December 24, 2025.

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2025.