The “Am KeLavi” war has proven that Israel knows how to handle massive rocket barrages. A review of the impressive interception rates—standing at 85%-90% throughout the 12 days of fighting—clearly demonstrates that even when the skies above Israel are stormy, it remains safe to be at Ben Gurion Airport. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a frustrating phenomenon: many international airlines have suspended their flights and have not returned to Israel even after a ceasefire was reached.
While security concerns may be understandable to a certain extent, they are not the decisive factor behind this choice. The real reason for the flight suspensions lies in regulatory, financial, and legal considerations.
The decision to fly to a specific destination is not a whim. International air services are governed by Bilateral Air Services Agreements (ASAs). These agreements, along with additional treaties and frameworks, authorize airlines to operate specific routes. In addition, umbrella agreements like the U.S.-Israel Open Skies Agreement allow American airlines to fly to Tel Aviv without restrictions on frequency or passenger volume. These agreements are just the tip of the iceberg, as airlines must also obtain further operational approvals such as landing rights, airport slot allocations, and safety certifications from national authorities.
Therefore, when Israel declares that its airport is open, there is no legal barrier preventing foreign airlines from operating. In other words, the decision by these airlines is based on business calculations—balancing risk and profitability.
When it comes to risk assessment, an airline’s primary responsibility is, of course, ensuring the safety of its crew and passengers. However, additional factors are also considered when flying to destinations classified as high-risk. For example, proximity to rocket fire zones or UAV activity raises logistical and legal concerns—who bears the cost of fuel if a plane is forced to circle or land elsewhere? Who pays for rerouting passengers to a different destination? Moreover, areas under wartime conditions typically incur expensive insurance premiums. Travel advisories or no-fly directives from the airline’s home country authorities—such as the European Union or the FAA—can also impose further legal liabilities on airlines.
Grounding aircraft is not merely a loss of revenue. Even after canceling flights to Tel Aviv, airlines must still honor aircraft lease agreements, if such exist. The cost of grounding a wide-body aircraft can exceed $1 million per month. The grounded aircraft remains subject to airport fees, fuel contracts, and maintenance schedules. Additionally, pilot and crew salaries and rest-time payments must continue. Other costs include schedule disruptions and passenger compensation. All of this exerts enormous pressure on the airline’s cash reserves. Temporarily suspending even a single profitable route can cost an airline millions of dollars per month. When an airline grounds its Tel Aviv flights, it absorbs these losses in full.
When weighing the risks of flying to Israel against the cost of suspending service, the case for resuming flights is stronger for three main reasons:
- Ben Gurion Airport has advanced defense systems and reinforced infrastructure.
- Israel is a vibrant business and tourism destination, and history shows that after brief downturns, demand quickly rebounds.
- Suspending flights to Israel damages long-term passenger trust, especially among business travelers and Jewish and Israeli communities who frequently fly to the country and form a loyal customer base.
Foreign airlines must immediately announce their return to Israel. Choosing to fly to Tel Aviv—even during challenging times—sends a strong and clear message: global commerce, diplomacy, and the human spirit cannot be grounded by fear. Especially now that life has returned to normal, airlines have every reason—and every opportunity—to once again profit from their Israeli routes.
