United Airlines has—for the second time—resumed flights to Israel shortly after a lawsuit was filed against the fourth-largest domestic carrier, seeking internal documents about how and why it opted to halt flights to the Jewish state.
On May 30, the National Center for Public Policy Research filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, demanding access to the Chicago-based, Delaware-incorporated airline’s records to see if it violated its fiduciary duties to shareholders by giving in to calls from its anti-Israel union to boycott the Jewish state.
The conservative think tank owns 123 United shares worth about $10,350.
The suit also seeks information about whether United colluded illegally with its partner, Turkish Airlines. “Turkish Airlines, a key Star Alliance partner of United, is partially controlled by the Turkish government, which has publicly called for and engages in a boycott of Israel,” per the complaint.
Anat Beck, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told JNS that “Israel is about 2% of their market share, and they hid it in their financial statements—how much it’s hurting.” Securities laws require the airline to disclose the financial impact of its decisions, she said.
Before the Hamas-led terror attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the airline operated 28 weekly flights to Tel Aviv—more than any other U.S. carrier. It suspended such flights on Oct. 7, and as of April 2025, it has “resumed only 14 weekly flights—a 50% reduction,” per the complaint. “United’s own 8-K filings and quarterly earnings reports confirm that this suspension resulted in a material decline in earnings, including an estimated $0.15 per share in lost earnings for each month of suspended operations.” (According to the think tank, United’s stock price fell 16.6%, while El Al’s rose 60%.)
Extrapolated, Beck says, that’s about $1.6 billion of lost earnings annually, or closing in on $3 billion since the war began.
“Despite these adverse financial impacts, United did not disclose the role of union influence in its public filings,” per the suit. “Statements by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and media reports indicate that the flight attendants’ union exerted internal political pressure to prevent resumption of the Tel Aviv route for ideological, not safety, reasons.”
Other airlines resumed flights to Israel “well before” United did so on March 15, per the suit.
“The Lufthansa Group resumed flights on Feb. 1, 2025, through all its subsidiaries— including Swiss International Air Lines, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines and Eurowings. Air France also resumed flights to Tel Aviv in early 2025,” the complaint states. “In contrast, United failed to provide shareholders with a clear explanation or any disclosed risk assessment regarding its prolonged suspension.”
“Notably, El Al Israel Airlines maintained uninterrupted service to Tel Aviv throughout the entire conflict period,” it adds.
The U.S. State Department issued some travel advisories during the war, but neither Foggy Bottom nor the Federal Aviation Administration directed airlines to stop flying to Tel Aviv due to security risks, per the suit.
United resumed service to Tel Aviv in March 2024, canceled flights in April—after Iran attacked Israel—restarted in May and suspended flights again in August 2024, amid rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah.
The airline’s announcement in February that it would resume flights to Israel in mid-March came after the National Center for Public Policy Research sent the carrier a books and records request. After the May 4 Houthi missile attack on the airport in Tel Aviv, United again suspended flights.
Beck told JNS that United immediately resumed flying to Israel after the National Center’s letter in February, and United told the plaintiffs that the allegations regarding union pressure were false.
“Now that we did it again, same thing. As soon as we filed this action—within two hours—they returned the flight,” Beck told JNS. “Maybe it’s a coincidence, but it happened twice.” (United declined to respond to JNS questions.)
The think tank didn’t file a suit in February, since United immediately returned to flying to the Jewish state, according to Beck.
Mark Goldfeder, an attorney for the plaintiffs and CEO and director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, stated that “shareholders have a right to know whether it is true, as the evidence appears to suggest, that United bowed to ideological pressure to join a silent boycott of Israel.”
The complaint notes that United’s Feb. 4 statement about resuming its flights to Tel Aviv was a “sharp and troubling departure from the company’s longstanding practice of attributing route suspensions and resumptions exclusively to operational, commercial or safety considerations.”
“In an unprecedented move, United stated that the decision ‘follows a detailed assessment of operational considerations for the region and close work with the unions who represent our flight attendants and pilots,’” per the lawsuit. “This marked the first time United has publicly acknowledged union input as a determinative factor in the resumption of international flight operations.”
“The inclusion of unions in this context suggests an unusually high degree of influence or involvement in what is normally a management-level strategic or safety decision,” the complaint adds.
Per the suit, Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, has supported boycotts of the Jewish state, and the union has pushed for a ceasefire, advocated for Washington to cut off military aid to the Jewish state and defended anti-Israel protesters on campus.
“AFA expects every one of our airlines to ensure the safety and security of crew on layover,” the union told JNS. “Our advocacy with airline management, no matter the destination, is solely focused on flight attendant safety and security. Any assertion otherwise is unfounded and delusional.” JNS
{Matzav.com}