IAD380 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
Haaretz reports today that the Director General of Israel's Transportation Ministry threaten to revoke El Al's status as the official national airline because LY plans to stop flying to CAI on November 23. The route is no longer profitable for LY, which is encouraging a private airline, Arkia, to take it over and serve it with smaller aircraft. According to Haaretz, the Director General is seeking an emergency meeting with other high government officials because he believes that it is vitally important for LY to continue operating this route.
This reasoning makes no sense. The Israeli government has privatized LY. It no longer owns most of the voting stock, and it no longer subsidizes the airline's losses. There is no "national security" or other compelling reason for a government to force a for-profit private company to fly an unprofitable commerical route. Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?
Flyingdove From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3097 times:
I think El Al needs to make up its mind. Does it want to be a special carrier with special rights and privelages (and therefore special obligations as well), or not?
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
The Isreali government should likewise allow LY just be to another commercial entity serving its own interest and not being forced to still act as an extension of the government.
Goes both way.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Jm017 From Jamaica, joined Jun 2002, 1223 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter): Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?
Definitely for political reasons. To maintain the illusion of normal relations with Egypt (or a to de-emphasize the fact that relations between the two countries have deteriorated).
But if they substitute another airline, I really do not see the big deal. In fact, given that LY is privatized, I think it's wrong to threaten them. The fact is, if this went through, there would still be a presence albeit a less prominent one.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
This reasoning makes no sense. The Israeli government has privatized LY. It no longer owns most of the voting stock, and it no longer subsidizes the airline's losses. There is no "national security" or other compelling reason for a government to force a for-profit private company to fly an unprofitable commerical route. Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?
Then for the reasons you stated, no reason for the airline to be the "official national airline", non?
CO7e7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2848 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
DCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 582 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2834 times:
My understanding is that the sole existence of this route is dependent on Western tourists using the TLV-CAI flight to get around on a larger Holy Land tour.
JFK69 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1386 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2824 times:
I am not sure of the aircraft that they fly down there, but would it make sense to lease a small aircraft (DASH 8 for example) to keep national status?
AA87 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2802 times:
On the political/natioanl airline stuff, simple. Israel not a "normal" country (perpetual state of war since its creation) and El Al is therefore not a "normal" airline. Privatize all you want, El Al is their Pan Am and will remain so for decades to come at least.
I flew LY on that route as a child in 1980, shortly after the route began. Our 720 landed late at night, boarded down the airstairs with an Egyptian army APC with 2 soldiers, weapons at the ready - protecting an Israeli plane. I remember the indelible image of the El Al tail on Cairo's tarmac, with Arab tails in the background (Egyptair, Saudia, Syrian). At that precise moment, peace on earth actually seemed possible ...
Voodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
Flew that route from TLV in '99. LY 732 out, 738 back. As AA87 describes it, there was something of a movie-set atmosphere with the Star of David planes ringed by local troops on arrival/departure and an APC escort on the ground at all times. The in-house Israeli security team seemed to have been on the ground prior to the plane's arrival. Must cost some. I wondered about the Egyptian employee who was wandering around the terminal entrance looking for passengers to guide (and he wanted baksheesh for it) in a bright blue 'EL AL' overall suit. Wonder if he's still doing that!
4xRuv From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 387 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2491 times:
Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter): Why should LY continue to fly a route that has high security costs but very little passenger demand?
Well, according to the newspaper(Yediot), the line does actually have demand and the plains are full, and still the security costs make it non profitable for LY, so I don't see how can IZ profit from this line.
Semsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2420 times:
Brightcedars MS stopped operating the route in 1948. My mother flew on MS once because the train was full.
Air Sinai operate the route though it's really a front for MS and managed by the same company. They set up Air Sinai because of political reasons. They don't want MS aircraft flying to TLV.
I doubt that Air Sinai would accept to code share.
Here is a link with a picture of a Misrair (Egyptair) De Havilland in TLV. Another airline Palestine Airways used to fly to Beirut.
IAD380 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 804 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
Quoting ETStar (Reply 4): Then for the reasons you stated, no reason for the airline to be the "official national airline", non?
I don't think any government should force private sector airlines to operate unprofitable routes for political reasons. If your argument is that LY must continue flying to CAI because it is an "official" airline, then the Israeli government should subsidize unprofitable routes that are maintained for political reasons. However, my understanding is that the Israeli government refuses to subsidize LY precisely because it is now a private company.
Quoting Semsem (Reply 13): Air Sinai operate the route though it's really a front for MS and managed by the same company.
This is ironic! MS won't fly to TLV for political reasons, yet its front company, Air Sinai, may end up with a monopoly on this route. If demand is high and planes are full, as 4XRuv says, then Air Sinai will probably increase flights between CAI and TLV after LY discontinues service. If so, MS could find TLV to be a very profitable route, despite its claims that it does not fly to Israel for political reasons.
The carrot is more consistent than the stick with the needs of the government. It is they, not El Al, who benefit from the political effects of having El Al serve CAI. They should figure out how much that is worth to them, and attach up to that much to the route as a subsidy.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Quoting IAD380 (Thread starter): The route is no longer profitable for LY, which is encouraging a private airline, Arkia, to take it over and serve it with smaller aircraft.
Why not switch to a 737 if it is such a big deal?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 804 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Jun 2002, 1223 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, 
From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1279 posts, 
From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 1964 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13875 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
