Talk:El Al

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star El Al is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2007.

Contents

[edit] some fixin

O.k, I've just deleted "and all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand-to-hand combat. Most El Al employees, male and female, have served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), as Israeli citizens are drafted at the age of 18".

1. as a flight crew mwmbwer in elal i can tell you that NONE of elal crew member get any training in hand-to-hand combet.

2.because serving in the IDF is mandatory here in Israel, its like saying "Microsoft-israel is the most secure software companies in the world - Most Microsoft-Israel employees, male and female, have served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), as Israeli citizens are drafted at the age of 18
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.100.94 (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Issuses

I am not a regular author at WIkipedia, but this should be fixed: As of 02/2007, Israir owns 2 A320, YL-LCB and YL-LCA and returned 4X-EBM to El AL. 4X-EBI never belonged to El Al, it is owned by ILFC who simply gave it first to El Al, then it was some months at ILFC and then ISRAIR leased it. Please update!!! Leo :D

Updated!!!

We are missing the numbers of two 757s, if someone can find them out.

[edit] Ownership outdated

The ownership listed in the History chapter is outdated, as the state sold it's shares in the company.brozen 05:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Attack

It says that the 2002 shooting incident at LAX was "one of the few on U.S. soil" since 9/11. Does this include only so-called Islamic extremism? If so, what other actual attacks (not foiled plots) have occured that were considered "terrorist acts". There's the anthrax and Richard Reid (not exactly "U.S. soil" but not so much foiled as failed). Any others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 20:45, March 2, 2006 (UTC)

See List of terrorist attacks. 68.32.48.42 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I'm not sure which logo is best, however the current one is very blurred Flymeoutofhere 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried uploading a better version of the logo, since the other one isn't showing the two-tone name (should be both light and dark blue). However, the new one isn't either for some reason and just looks crappy, so I reverted. Dbinder 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What about this one? Image:El-al logo.gif DeepSpace 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that one's much better Flymeoutofhere 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok so I'll edit the article. DeepSpace 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got the real logo in SVG, so I changed it. Image:El Al Logo.svg--Keeleysam 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destinatons

I think we should make a seperate page for the destination. What do you think?

El Al doesn't fly to Montreal. Sun D'Or, El Al's charter subsidiary, uses El Al's aircraft to fly to various cities around the world, from Montreal to Osaka and many other cities in between. For proof, go to elal.com and look at the route map. Montreal is not listed!

"all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand to hand combat". Well... I am ElAl crew member and i didn't know that.... Were did you get it from?

El Al does not fly to Atlanta either. I have flew to Atlanta many times and neglected to see any El Al planes there. I have removed Atlanta from the list. Bucs2004 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missile Countermeasures?

This has never been proven. Does anybody have evidence to cite this? Win101 16:56, June 20, 2006 (UTC)

http://www.iai.co.il/Default.aspx?docID=25873&FolderID=28973&lang=en&PageNum=3 DeepSpace
The source does not explicitly say that the systems were indeed installed. it says that they are destined to be. it is very likely that the systems were never installed due to safety concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.228.215 (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss don't allow El Al?

Since when? As per this article, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961375334 , it seems that El Al is flying in Switzerland.

True, I've flown El Al to Zurich several times the past year. Whoever wrote this - can you give a reference? --ShaharEvron 19:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 27, 1955 - El Al Constellation shot down over Bulgaria

All the crew and passengers? I know a survivor.

[edit] All pilots ex-IAF?

As far as I'm aware, the claim that all El-Al pilots are ex-IAF fighter pilots is a myth. El-Al conducts training for non-ex-military pilots to join its ranks. Penedo 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardened Unit Load Devices

I remember watching a TV program over the last year or two where they demonstrated how a Hardened ULD (Unit_Load_Device) can be effective in order to contain explosives in the cargo area. The program claimed that El-Al is the only company to deploy these ULD's because its security expenses is financed by the Israeli government. Sorry - no reference available. Maybe the program was talking about the HULD in this link: http://www.jaycor.com/jaycor_main/web-content/set_huld_desc.html

Penedo 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flying on jewish sabbath

How about the following for the Jewish aspects of El Al? Vonfraginoff 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

El Al has had success in the past serving the needs of the religious Jewish clientele who fly to and from Israel: It serves only kosher food (by some definitions), long-haul flights typically feature passenger-led prayer-services, and, as a rule, El Al does not fly on Shabbat. Following an Israeli civil-services strike which shut down the airport, El Al scheduled take-offs after sundown on Friday, raising the ire of religious jewish groups.

- http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3334905,00.html

"El Al does not fly in principle on Shabbat but there have been instances that it is forced to move passengers and has done so." The spokesperson said the religious and haredi market made up approximately 20% of El Al's customer-base with the New York, London and Brussels routes dominating the market.

- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881832548&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vonfraginoff (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

"El Al no longer has an official policy" - did El Al ever have an official policy? I thought that it was an unofficial agreement that was respected but was not signed by contract, etc. Sagtkd 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Added extra verbiage to History section to match. -- Vonfraginoff 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Logo

Does anyone have a copy of the new El Al logo? Flymeoutofhere 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! (truth be told, I like the old one better...) --DLandTALK 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
True, the new one looks...tacky. Any chance of putting the old one back somewhere in the article? --Gunny01 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - So how about we put in a brief history of the logo - how it has developed? Flymeoutofhere 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the three logos in the article (if all of them are really necessary) should be placed together, to show the changes. This way, they are kind of distributed all over the article and don't seem very different.--Gilabrand 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Al at Heathrow

Does anyone know what El Al's location at Heathrow will be next year after the opening of Terminal Five, and the movement of most airlines. Theoretically, all non-alligned carriers are going to Terminal Four, however, are El Al? This morning an article in Globes, [1] says that El Al is opening a new business lounge at Heathrow this year which seems odd if they are going to move just a few months later. Also, would El Al be alongside other carriers from countries such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc in T4? Flymeoutofhere 13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy Section

This is getting ridiculous - we need to have a vote on whether it should or should not be included in the article:Flymeoutofhere 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Exclude-Irrelevant , adding a political aspect to a non-political article.Flymeoutofhere 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude-Per above. --יהושועEric 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

*Exclude-Per above.S234 06:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) *Exclude-Per above.87.68.218.150 17:32, 12 April 2007 (IST)

  • Exclude-Source used for claim is an AM Talk Radio program. Abe Froman 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include-Provides fair, non-biased neutral POV. Bonus bon 05:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include-The main source is a credible organization funded by the European Union. Also, this section is not biased. Ghfj007 06:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - I think we've reached a consensus - if it is added again, I think we should go through the vandalism procedure because this comes under the definition of vandalism given by WP:Vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Flymeoutofhere 10:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree - I think that a controversy section provides a neutral point of view to this article. There is no political aspect at all, rather, this article is incredibly biased because a section about non-Jews' views is not accepted, especially given that there are credible sources cited (ABC Asia Pacific [which is the national Australian network], Arab Association for Human Rights [funded by the European Union i.e. not 'terrorist-linked', and The Center Against Racism). It is absolutely absurd that one tries to use the excuse that because this is a company's article page, passengers' comments should not be added. This is just as stupid as not allowing there to be comments on a tobacco company's article about protests by anti-smoking groups against the company. This is also definitely NOT vandalism, rather an unfair manipulation of this page by very biased people. 218.102.175.204 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
218.102.175.204, I totally agree with you. There is sufficient evidence that there is indeed racist passenger profiling taking place against Arab passengers about to travel on El Al flights. I think that it is totally unfair that this article has been manipulated to give an unfair, one-sided view. With every hope that a fair article can be made, Ghfj007 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is and will remain a non-political article. Get over it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

Could you please sign your comments in future? Thanks, 218.102.127.94 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (PS I don't like the tone of your comment at all - it is rather rude and controlling.)
Not too sure that the comment is that 'controlling', but it is certainly maining a fierce statement without anything backing itself up. I support 218.102.175.204, Ghfj007 and 218.102.127.94 in their arguments. This page is indeed being unfairly biased. I DO NOT tolerate ANY sort of racism (NO ANTI-SEMITISM, no racism against Arabs or any other race either). Adding this controversy section is definitely not anti-Semitic, nor is it political. It merely states the simple, clear fact that racism exists within the security checks system at Israeli airports for passengers about to board El Al flights. I do think that the sources given are credible, and for this reason, I have decided to re-insert the Controversy section back into this article. Bonus bon 04:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The controversy section is uneccessary. El Al is an airline, and operates security as it sees fit, at the end of the day this improves security for all passengers, Arab or not. Racial profiling isn't therefore something to be discussed in this airline, there are articles on Racial profiling which this could be included in but it should be a more general debate about Airline's Racial Profiling, perhaps with some examples. It isn't however, something to pin down to a particlular airline. The article, up until this point is, like most other airline articles, totally un-political - it is pure facts. This is incredibly subjective and we can't even reach a consensus over whether to put it in. As you see above, there was a vote, where there are five official votes to exclude it. Reading through comments, there are three to include it against a total of six to exclude it. Flymeoutofhere 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see the sub-section below. Because of the votes being struck, there is no consensus to remove this section. Metros232 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Ghfj007 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with vote

I have struck 3 votes from this section for being invalid. One was added by S234 (talk · contribs) who has only 5 edits and his first one was to vote on this page. It appears he is a single purpose account. The other two have been struck because they were added by an IP address inappropriately. See this edit. Something is clearly up with this as the IP added 2 votes, neither of which were by that IP. Metros232 10:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Metros232, thank you very much for your clarification about the invalidity of the vote.

What would convince you that I am not a "single purpose account"? Should I make other contributions in other subjects as well?S234 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Flymeoutofhere, why don't you take British Airways as an example. It includes a seciton about "Dirty Tricks". Nobody has thought about taking it away, despite the fact that certain statements aren't properly backed up with reliable sources. However, this Controversy section has two very reliable sources - ABC Asia Pacific and an organizations' report (this organization is funded by the European Union). Bonus bon 12:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you can really compare. The Dirty Tricks section is about a legal case, not in the slightest similar to accusations of being racist. The sources might be reliable but that doesnt meant that the content is appropraite for Wikipedia. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and I feel that those comments are unencyclopediatic. "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS" and although these aren't neccessarily your opinions. The sources are as credible as you want them to be...but you find me one other article about a company who have accusations of being racist. Racism is "a belief that human races have distinctive make-ups that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." By having security checks in which certain races are checked more thoroughly based upon statistical evidence and the fact that this race is constantly attacking the other. This is not racism BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCEs Flymeoutofhere 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are now 4 credible votes to exclude. Once again, removing section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

Can IP Addresses vote? 219.77.8.133 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looked into this and "In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia." [2] Therefore there are still four credible votes to exclude which is a removing selection Flymeoutofhere 09:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Just want to point out that the two official votes from Bonus bon and Ghfj007 which came in this morning were within four minutes of each other. Only noticed this following the two ip addresses yesterday. Also it doenst look like the second vote from Ghfj007 was signed off using the '4~' function as it is not linked. Flymeoutofhere 09:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Ghfj007 never signs in that way. See other edits like this one. They all appear to be signed like it is in this poll. Looking at their edits, it doesn't appear that the two accounts are in any way connected and that no sockpuppetry is in place here. Metros232 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK - just a coincidence then - why did you strike out the S234 comment? Flymeoutofhere 10:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also vote againt this undue attempt of politicizing a non-political article. Given that "The views expressed in this report are those of the Arab Association for Human Rights and the Center Against Racism and can, therefore, in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union and ICCO.", I question that report as a reliable source. Rather, it's just another attempt to sabotage Israeli business and/or Israel's security. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has ever said that these were the opinions of the EU. The only thing that was said was that the report was FUNDED by the EU. I don't the EU funds non-credible organizations with internal problems. Israel can still be safe without the need to carry out racist measures. Ghfj007 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has made it clear (to me) that the controversy section's base citations are too POV to include in the article. Abe Froman 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What I've expressed on this discussion page is my opinion, just as what you've written is your opinion - of course it can't contain a 'neutral point of view'. What is important, however, is that the actual Controversy section in the article IS NPOV. This is the case, because it also include the opinion of Daniel Pipes, who says that security measures are necessary under all circumstances. Now, unless you can find something else that you can criticize about the section (i.e. not about the section's neutrality or sources, because worries about these items has been solved), then I will put this section in to the article. Ghfj007 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with politicization of this commercial article. The consensus above was to keep the politicization out, largely because of the quality of sources. Addition of the controversy section should be reverted on sight. Abe Froman 16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ghfj007, unless you are a quotable expert on the subject of Israel's security and racism, I suggest you keep your orignial research out of WP. Your sources are as unreliable as can be. WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Before making a response, I would just like to say that I am really not coming here intending to cause any trouble or offence and that I am aware of how much involvement and time many users have also put into this section in arguing their case. I just have difficulty understanding how a small section about some non-Jewish views on the way El Al goes about their security measures has been attacked upon so fiercely by some users. Some users say that it is too political; however, I can't personal see anything political about stating that in certain people's view, El Al security policies are racist. I have also used a source which is written by an organization funded by the EU. I have never even attempted for a moment to say that the report was the view of the EU, it is just that the EU, in my opinion, would not fund the publishing of reports which are grossly and seriously untrue and unreliable. Regarding the accusation that the section is propaganda, I strongly disagree. The section includes a view by Daniel Pipes that the security measures are necessary even if they are deemed to be racist. The section is therefore NPOV. I have always tried to back up my case civilly and politely and I have never tried to threaten users who delete this section, instead I have always encouraged discussion with them through the user page. It simply astounds me that some people are so violent against me. Ghfj007 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. It has nothing to do with the views being non-Jewish but it is purely too political. There is no need to put the views in. This is an encyclopedia and whilst it is supposed to put two points of view in, this isnt an issue of the scale to merit it. Add to this the fact that we dont really think the sources are credible for the article. We arent going to get into an argument about EU fudnign but they have funded some wrong biased things in the past. That isnt to say that its terrorist related, but it is biased with a vested interest. It could be seen to be propogandorous. Daniel Pipes is going to be biased as well based on who he is (not to take any credibility away) but these are just opinionated. I understand where you;re coming from, but it isnt suitable for this article and this case. There was a vote and we had a majority to exclude it. That's the fairest you can get. By that logic in itself I guess it should be excluded but there are other consequential reasons outlined throughout the discussion. Flymeoutofhere 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Al ATR

Does El Al have an ATR aircraft for fligths from Ben Gurion to Eilat? On their scheudle page, teh daily flight on this route is operated by an ATR aircraft which is not a codeshare. Flymeoutofhere 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I am quickfailing this article due to a near complete lack of references in addition to the citation needed tags. Please fully reference the article before nominating it again. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Zeus1234 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions before re-nominating the article

1) The lead is far too short. It should summarize everything in the article. TheI would suggest is have one paragraph dedicated to history, and another (or two) for everything else in the article.

2) There are no references for the destination section.

  • This line has no reference: El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through such a chamber. Even in airports in the United States, El Al security agents conduct all luggage searches personally, though they are often supervised by government or private security firms who otherwise have screening responsibilities.
  • The livery section has no reference

3) The On the Plane section has too many paragraphs. You should probably only have a maximum of two paragraphs in this section

Zeus1234 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK have done and will renominate--Flymeoutofhere 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rescuing Jews from India?

I found this statement in the intro...

Over its history, El Al has been very much involved in humanitarian rescue efforts of Jews from many nations including Ethiopia, India and Yemen and...

Humanitarian rescue efforts in India? Is that true? If so when did this event occur? -17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes to be honest i was surprised as well, but it says so on the El Al website - [3].--Flymeoutofhere 18:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-added controversy section

The article has been nominated for Featured status, and I have made many comments on how to improve the article, because as it stands now I doubt it will reach featured status. Going thru the article, and not being an expert on El Al by any stretch of the imagination, I was surprised that the section dealing with El Al security did not mention profiling of Arab and non-Jewish passengers - it is common knowledge in the industry that El Al does this, El Al does not deny it, nor do they apologise for it. I think it is fair that given the information on the security procedures performed, which are unique to El Al, that the effects of those procedures are known (and properly referenced as the section was). And to stay WP:NPOV, a counter-statement/argument (and properly referenced) was also provided. You have an extreme argument on one side, and the other extreme on the other side.

If it is a problem of sources, for which I see nothing wrong in either case (for/against), the article which establishes the following statement "El Al has the reputation of being the most secure airline in the world due to the security procedures it employs both on the ground and onboard its aircraft.", could easily be used to provide the same 'profiling' controversy, and there are even quotes from El Al reps there.

As I mentioned in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/El_Al, the existence of a controversy section in an airline article should not be dismissed, even if it is political, and especially if it is factual and backed up, as the existence of a controversy section will not deem an article unfit for Featured status, as is the case for Ryanair, one of only 2 featured airline articles. IMHO, a controversy section only provides a more balanced, and in-depth, view of an entity. --Russavia 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


This went on for a long time before you decided to show up, and don't think that you can just waltz into the situation and do whatever you want. CONSENSUS WAS TO REMOVE CONTROVERSY SECTION. That is what will happen. Don’t think that you can just put it back because you want it there. If you want it, you need to take another vote.

In regards to the 'Controversy' section, please familiarise with WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I suggest that you also read the cited articles in the 'Security' section, because many of them provide examples outsie of the 'Controversy' section of El Al profiling its Arab passengers. The inclusion of the controversy of El Al security, as it is now, is not pushing a point of view that El Al security measures is racist, but is merely presenting the reality, or at the very least the perception of reality, as viewed by the very people the security is targetted against. It is well known, i.e. common knowledge, that El Al security is as strict as it is due to incidents as shown here, and that the security is aimed towards Arabs (with British Asians coming under closer scrutiny these days).
Also, Before reverting ENTIRE edits I suggest that you peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/El_Al. The article as it stood would not obtain featured articled status. As an airline article it needs to conform to guidelines which are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines#Structure. User:Flymeoutofhere has already started doing edits, and has even cleaned up some of my edits. And I will help out somewhat with references and the like. --Russavia 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording of the 'counter argument'. Originally it said "However, some...", which was changed to "Many....". Both can insinuate numbers which may or may not be there. "some" can mean next to none. Many can mean majority. I hope the reworded, "On the other hand, there are those..." is acceptable to "Many" :) It is neutral I believe, as it doesn't project that a minority or majority agree or disagree with El Al procedures?

Do not ignore what took place already. Consensus was to remove controversy section. Do not re-add again without consensus or I will request page protection.

[edit] Some sources for info to expand article

Whilst you can't copy, you can refer, and use the sources they used, but here is a few links with good info on El Al which can be used to expand the article a little more:

Here is another link [4] Perhaps someone would like to contact some of the photographers of OLD El Al aircraft, the Connies and 707s, and see if they will upload them to Commons? Or are there other photos available for use of the old aircraft - the Connies, Britannias and 707s?

Also, here is a couple of photos which could clearly be used under 'fair use' as a non-repeatable event, and would be suitable for this (and other articles) - [5] --Russavia 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Or this photo [6] --Russavia 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Im not really up to scratch on image laws/rules etc - would really appreciate if someone could do some contacting--Flymeoutofhere 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I will do the contacting on this one. --Russavia 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Have contacted some photographers. One has allowed use of his 707 photo, and will wait to hear back from the others. Would be good to have a Britannia or Connie photo in here. --Russavia 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents and accidents

Just looking at the list of incidents and accidents I want to make the following observations, as the 'facts' will likely affect any FA nomination.

  • The July 1968 hijacking mentions that there was evidence that the Lebanese government was directly involved and Israel retaliated by bombing Beirut Airport. Firstly, that needs a citation, specifically in regards to 'it later emerged...'. But before the citation is provided, the facts need to be double checked, as on 26 December 1968, 2 PFLP opened fire on an LY aircraft in Athens killing a mechanic, and on 28 December 1968 Israel bombed Beirut Airport. The decision to bomb Beirut Airport needs to be clarified, because the timeline of the BEY bombing fits in more with the Athens attack, and a source states this is the case.
Im not sure about that one--Flymeoutofhere 08:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The same source also mentions 18Feb1969 Zurich attack on aircraft, and Sep-Dec1969 attacks on various El Al offices. Are these notable?
  • On 30May1972, 3 members of the Japanese Red Army (operating on behalf of the PFLP) killed 26 people and wound 76 with grenades and automatic rifles at Tel Aviv airport [7]. Was this aimed at El Al specifically? Or the airport in general? If El Al specific, it needs to be included? Also at Lod Airport Massacre
The terrorists flew in on an AirFrance flight, the attack was on the airport and not on El Al. Don't think this one should be mentioned here Derwig 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On27Dec1985, [8] "After several attempts at direct attacks on El Al fail, guerrillas of Abu Nidal's hardline Fatah Revolutionary Council attack El Al counters simultaneously at Rome and Vienna airports, killing 19 people." Notable, yes? Inclusion?
  • The 23Oct2003 already listed, is this truly notable? It was basically a non-event, yes? --Russavia 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK ive dealt with all of those but am unsure of the beirut attack still?Flymeoutofhere 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added back in the 23Oct2003 incident for now, and will post comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines and get some ideas/concensus over there as to what should and shouldn't be included here, and how to present it. El Al is one of those special cases in that its history, particularly the 1960s/early70s, was rife with attacks on its aircraft/offices/etc, and the airline was re-active in regards to those attacks (such as the security measures it now has). As the format of incidents/accidents is a WP:Airlines guidelines, best to get input from others there too.

As to the Beirut attack, is this likely?......the first attack in July1968 did show evidence of Lebanese govt involvement, but Israel did nothing, perhaps because the last thing that was needed was another war (1967 war not long over), but the 26Dec1968 attack was the last straw, and Israel attacked Lebanon on 28Dec1968 in retaliation over all of these attacks? --Russavia 15:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be fine. -- Flymeoutofhere 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments/questions on info in the article

I have been doing some copyediting and the like in the article, and have come across a few things which should probably be discussed before doing more as it is imperative the info is correct, so thoughts/opinions/info please....

  • The early years section is now quite long, and this is a good thing as it was only a short paragraph previously. But is it a little too long? Perhaps need to split this up. Keep the early years. Then from around the time the 707s were delivered, have a "Jet era and terrorism" section. I think the 'incidents and accidents' is a little too long, and the incidents could be brought out of that section, prosed and put into such a section in the history? Then continue the sections as is from the delivery of the 747, etc.
Agreed there - I've made hte new jet section and I totally agree iwth the incidents and accidents section but I dont understand quite how you mean to do this?
  • In the introduction it is mentioned about El Al growing its network, but we don't have much info on what the network was, or how it grew, throughout the different eras. Some flights to London, Paris, US, Egypt, Bucharest are mentioned. But what was the network say at the time when the 707s were introduced? How had the network grown by the time when 747s were introduced? For this, we will need timetables or schedules or route maps from those eras. Any ideas?
There must be a site somewhere specialising in this info?
  • In 1990s and early 2000s, it is mentioned that in January 1990 a humanitarian airlift from the USSR began in conjunction with Aeroflot. This isn't quite right (coming from a part of aviation which I am totally up with, but am unable to find suitable sources just yet). El Al did indeed begin charter flights to Moscow from Tel Aviv in January 1990, and big reason for these charters was to provide direct flights to Israel for Soviet Jews who wished to migrate (notice I have also changed the word to emigrants in the article from refugees, as they don't fulfill the refugee requirements). Around October/November 1990, Israel and the USSR signed their air services agreement which allowed for scheduled flights to begin. So I think that airlift isn't quite the right word for these operations, as they weren't similar to the airlifts in Ethiopia or Yemen, in order to evacuate Jews who were in peril, but rather they were just providing a way for people wishing to migrate to get to their destination quicker (previously Soviet Jews flew via airports such as Budapest, Larnaca, etc to get to Tel Aviv). It seems information on this is going to be somewhat difficult to find on English internet? If so, what about Hebrew internet? I will look on Russian internet also.
OK - we need a hebrew speaker again - maybe they can find the route maps as well
Couldn't find anything in Hebrew, but I did a newspaper search and found this November 28, 1991 article in The Jerusalem Post ("El Al flies olim on first direct charter" by HERB KEINON):
About 230 Soviet immigrants arrived on an El Al charter from Moscow yesterday, the first El Al charter shuttling immigrants out of the Soviet Union since an agreement allowing for direct [chartered] flights was signed in September [end of August according to another article]. Since the agreement, immigrants have arrived directly from Moscow on empty seats available on El Al's commercial Moscow-Tel Aviv route, as well as on flights by Aeroflot's charter airline subsidiary, Transair. In addition, Alak Airline, belonging to businessman Ya'acov Nimrodi, has been flying directly from Moldava at varying intervals since September.
nadav (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Basically, the agreement for regular flights was signed in early 1990. Weekly El Al flights started a while after that, but they were not allowed to carry immigrants. El Al began to bring them in on charter flights towards the end of 1991. nadav (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the current shareholding of El Al? Here is their English profile on TASE, but I can't find any information on TASE as to who currently owns what. I believe this information may be available here, but it is in Hebrew only. Any Hebrew speaker can check this out? This link has info apparently valid as of March 2007, and I have updated the article, but would be good to have most up to date info (the S&P link seems to have regularly updated data, so perhaps that is current as of today, but either way it is a good link for editors to bookmark to add info as it becomes available)
Yep done
  • I have removed El Al Cargo as being a subsidiary of El Al. It isn't listed on the El Al subsidiary page on their website, nor on S&P as being a subsidiary. It seems to be an operating division within El Al Israel Airlines Ltd.. But the article mentions that is independent. Some verification of this is needed one way or the other. This would likely be in an El Al annual report, which is in Hebrew only? --Russavia 20:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like most of hwat we need comes down to the need for a hebrew editor - I can try to find one.--Flymeoutofhere 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems to be the case. I see you left a msg for a user, so hopefully they may be able to help out. --Russavia 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In English it is described as "an independent wing" or a "division" since 1997.[9]. In the Hebrew version [10], the word "אגף" is used consistently which translates better as division. The Hebrew describes the division as an "independent profit center", whatever that means. I'll look more precise info. nadav (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
In the 2007 first quarter report press release [11], revenues from cargo are listed right by revenues from passenger revenue. Also, El Al is described as the leading company in the Israeli cargo market. By contrast, it says "the company is active in the chartered flights market through its subsidiary Sun Dor," and income from chartered flights is not specified. nadav (talk) I examined the 2006 annual report as best I could [12] (it's 377 pages long). Income from cargo and passengers were in separate sections, so as expected they keep track of them separately. However, there was a special section with listing of investments in subsidiaries and related companies, and El Al Cargo was not on the list, so it is not a separate company. nadav (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nadav--Flymeoutofhere 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Vote' on 'controversy' section in Security?

A user continues to remove and revert the Controversy section of Security. He deems that this was discussed some months ago and the concensus was that this should not be included. I disagree, and feel that that 'vote' was not properly discussed. So to make clear why I believe this section should stay, here is my reasoning.

  • It is a well-known fact that El Al does profile its passengers, and it is known which groups are particularly targetted. For example, refer to this news article [13] - it should be mentioned that this same article is used in the article to affirm that El Al has the reputation of being the most secure in the world. Most of the sources referenced in the article also mention some type of prose relating to the 'controversy'. One can't very well use an article to provide citations for one thing, whilst ignoring other issues which are raised in the same article.
  • The presence of this section isn't accusing El Al of racism, far from it. It is presenting the reality, or at the very least the perceived perception, of how a sub-group of El Al customers are affected by these measures. It could also be sourced from other news articles how 'Arab' passengers are pulled aside for intense questioning, and intense searches, whilst Jewish passengers receive little screening.
  • The measures whilst effective are not fail safe, and this is evidenced by the addition of events of 2002.
  • The existence of a 'controversy' section can't affect the ability of an article to be featured, or even stable. Have a look at Ryanair for an example, which is one of only 2 featured airline articles, yet the article has quite a significant criticism/controversy section. There is no reason that an article with such a section can't be stable in that section.
  • The reasoning not to make a non-political article 'political' is a little bit of a cop-out IMHO. Yes it's a non-political article, but sometimes non-political entities do things which have political consequences. Take for example, the US airlines which were turning over pax data to the government, or the British Airways cross-wearing employee scandal, etc. These aren't swept under the carpet due to being 'political' but are presented NPOV and sourced.
  • Whilst the measures are effective in preventing terrorism on El Al aircraft, for almost every positive action there is a negative re-action (i.e. consequence) and this section merely presents the major negative reaction.
  • The section itself conforms with WP standards, and can find no WP policy which forbids it.

Hence I would support the inclusion of this particularly section in the article as it stands. --Russavia 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


1) Please note that RyanAir is a FORMER featured article.
2) While not forbidden by WP policy, the controversy section does not belong in the article. This article should not contain opinions of El Al, as they are irrelevant.
3) The number of back-and-forth edits to the controversy section demonstrate that the section can never be stable and there will always be edit wars over it.
4) User flymeoutofhere made many other good points in the previous section discussing whether or not the section should be included (see above).

I would exclude the controversy section. 11:01, 31 May, 2007 (EDT)

68.161.133.57, firstly, you need to sign in
To address your points one at a time.
Ryanair was a former featured article. Correct. BUT, the article which became featured is here, and as you can see it has a criticism section
If opinions are not allowed in the article for being irrelevant, this needs to go. Quote: procedures have given El Al the reputation of being the more secure airline in the world. Endquote. Reputation is an opinion, after all. But of course, this opinion is backed up by media articles, and so is the 'controversy' section. If one goes, both need to go.
The back and forth edits are by myself (Russavia) and yourself (68.161.133.57), and have to do whether the section belongs or not.
Yes, flymeoutofhere made a good point or two, HOWEVER, you can't very well write about a security process which was brought about by politics (terrorism), and state that El Al can do as it sees fit, without providing information about that process and the effects. One thing which is lacking in the 'security' section is this: Quote Despite their current anxieties, Americans also might balk at El Al-style ethnic profiling. Staff scrutinize the passengers' names, dividing them into low-risk (Israeli or foreign Jews), medium-risk (non-Jewish foreigners) and extremely high-risk travelers (anyone with an Arabic name). These people automatically are taken into a room for body and baggage checks and lengthy interrogation. Single women also are considered high-risk, for fear they might be used by Palestinian lovers to carry bombs. Endquote That is from the same article which is used to reference this statement, quote procedures have given El Al the reputation of being the more secure airline in the world. endquote. Additionally, the whole 'most secure' is brought into question when you look at it from the 2002 incident, in which a single, young, Arab male managed to make it onto an El Al aircraft with a pocket knife. That did raise question marks about the security and it deserves to be mentioned. As does the Hungarian court case, as this is in 'opposition' to statements that El Al can do as it sees fit with its security. El Al's security processes can go against legal norms (as the Hungarian court ruled) and can be humiliating for those at the receiving end of interrogation (this isn't the same as asking someone to remove their shoes for a security check).
Additionally, and lastly, El Al themselves admit it is (rightfully) discriminatory, and as such have opened the door so-to-speak. From the same article above, quote, "To sift out who is who, screeners usually begin by asking passengers whether they understand any Hebrew, which most Jews do. Officials argue that such blatant discrimination is necessary.

"We don't ask the same questions to everyone; there's a surprise element so people can't prepare their answers," says El Al spokesman Nachman Klieman, adding that they don't reveal many of their security secrets publicly. --Russavia 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the vote was not done fairly and that there was a noticeable problem about the validity of several votes. I think that a controversy section should be included in El Al to make it fair. Also, I think that it is suspicious that some users do not sign their comments on this talk page. Ghfj007 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Arab profiling controversy

When I was reading about this controversy back in 06. The common response to the profiling was that a lot of Muslims have connections to enemy states. I am sure most people would agree if the Muslim position on Israel would be more tolerable there would be no profiling. I do not see the position on the matter included in the article. If anyone of you Wikipedian hero could add it I would be really greatful. I would do it myself but I am rather new to this.

Whilst the details in the controversy section belong, as they are relevant to El Al, these types of details way toooooo political and have nothing to do with El Al, but rather the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, it belongs there, not on El Al. --Russavia 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but your views are largely irrelevant and won't be added to the article even if you consider them a 'common response'. You need a reliable source. Besides that as I understand it, the intention of racial profiling is not to punish people because of their views. Therefore the so called Muslim position is irrelevant, only the potential actions of people. Besides that and this has absolutely nothing to do with the article or racial profiling, there is no such thing as a Muslim position, only the position of individual Muslims. This sort of Muslim position thinking is the same flawed thinking that leads some people to believe that there is such a thing as a Jewish position and that it is therefore acceptable to punish all Jews for this so called 'Jewish position'. Smarter people realise that there are neither. As I mentioned earlier, none of this has anything to do with racial profiling in any case. Nil Einne 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shareholders

The link [14] has all the company reports including changes of shareholders and such. The latest report to list shareholders with controlling shares [15] (dated May 28, 2007) gives:

Holder number Name of holder Name, type, and series of security Updated number of securities Holdings: % Capital Holdings: % Voting Holdings (full dilution): % Capital Holdings (full dilution): % Voting
1 State of Israel Regular share 54,932,123 13.00 13.00 1.09 1.09
2 Knafaim Holdings Ltd. Regular share 176,615,219 41.80 41.80 37.80 37.80
3 Knafaim Holdings Ltd. Call option (series 2) 3,743,968 — — — —
4 Knafaim Holdings Ltd. Warrant (series 1) 14,606,777 — — — —
5 Holdings held in trust for employees of El Al Ltd. Regular share 32,527,216 7.70 7.70 6.31 6.31

nadav (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Note that the Borovich family has a controlling interest in Knafaim: [16]. nadav (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:El Al ocean ad.png

Image:El Al ocean ad.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo is not attractive and hard to decipher. I would remove it from the article, regardless of its "historic" significance. The fact that its use is disputed only strengthens my feeling in that regard. If it were in color, or clearer, then maybe there would be some justification, but as it is, it adds nothing to the article.--Gilabrand 11:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have now enlarged the photo, which seems to help a bit, because you can see more details. Is it necessary for the "new logo" to appear twice in the article? How about adding a photo of the aircraft used today at the top of the info box, to add a little pizzazz?--Gilabrand 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox Airline template doesn't seem to have a parameter for other types of images. The general practice seems to be to use logos in all company infoboxes. Not that we have to follow these unstated "rules" though. nadav (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement not supported by reference

El Al's security protocol has been proven incredibly effective and is now a model which many airline around the world follow.

I read the reference but from what I can tell it doesn't suggest anywhere that it's a model which airlines follow instead it's simply suggesting it's on that they should follow. Also, since this is in the profiling section, it's important to note that the reference is predominantly discussing the overall security protocol and seems to suggest the ethnic & gender profiling component is not that important and is ambigious on whether the ethnic & gender profiling component should be followed Nevermind, after rereading I realised there was more content that didn't have anything to do with the profiling controversy so I made a new subheading. Nil Einne 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo history images

  • Image:El Al Logo 1950.gif (El Al logo in the 1950s)
  • Image:60s.gif (El Al logo in the early 1960s)
  • Image:Elal logo.gif (El Al logo from the 1960s to 2006)

Logos moved here following FAC comment. If information on the origin of the logo, or reasons for logo changes are found, please add back to article.Derwig 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've converted the logos to link form due to avoid a bot replacing them with dummy images. Valentinian T / C 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the first paragraph in History

I can't understand the meaning of the first paragraph:

"In September 1948, Israel's first president, Chaim Weizmann, attended a conference in Geneva, Switzerland. Weizmann was scheduled to fly back to Israel in a government aircraft, but due to the embargo imposed on Israel at the time, this was not possible. A C-54 military transport aircraft was converted into a civilian plane for this purpose. The aircraft was painted with the El Al/Israel National Aviation Company logo and fitted with extra fuel tanks to enable a non-stop flight from Geneva to Israel. It departed from Ekron Air Base on September 28, and returned to Israel on September 30. After the flight, the aircraft was repainted and returned to military use."

What's the connection between this paragraph and the airline El Al? --my name 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the connection is crystal clear? What are you trying to say?--Gilabrand 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Most secure airline"

This article is cited twice to give credence to the claim that El Al is the world's most secure airline, but from reading it, it only says "So it goes when traveling with the world's most security-conscious airline." Is there some third party organization that has actually ranked the airlines and stated that El Al is the most secure?-Wafulz 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Google for "most secure airline" [17] and literally every hit says it's El Al. Raul654 02:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So Google Ranks effect how secure an airline company is now? Wafulz comment still applies, which 3rd party organisation says that El Al is the most secure? Its seems like blatant advertisement. Its ability to secure its flights from Terrorist incidents is definitely a notable quality given the geo-political area that it works in and for. Should I now go onto the page for the English Football team and say they are the best team in the world because a lot of people say so? Mikebloke 10:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Raul does have a point- pretty much every hit says it's El Al, with some citing "airline analysts". The best case scenario would be to find the airline analysts' publication.-Wafulz 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
El Al security has been erased from the lead following this discussion. It is an important part of the article, and should be mentioned there. I have added it back to the lead (with a minor change, +one CNN reference). Reword it if you like, but not mentioning it at all is not the way to go. -- Derwig 13:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-missile system

For those of you actively working on this now-featured article, it looks like El Al is working on installing such a system on its planes. "El Al is now installing an anti-missile system onto one of its Boeing jets. If it works, the system will be rolled out to six other aircraft, and eventually the entire fleet." From Defense Industry Daily. I found this while researching the Mumbasa missile attack - I wondered why it wasn't listed here. But that attack was against an Arkia charter plane - not sure if that means it was an off-duty El Al plane, but it was not an El Al flight. That plane did not, as was speculated at the time, have any time of ECM system on board, at least according to the Israelis - but that seems to be about to change. Does a regular author want to add the info cited above? Cheers, Kgdickey 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Socrates2008 05:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shoe Bomber

I added a reference in the list of incidents. According to news reports Richard Reid flew with El Al and was spotted as a problem by security.

Telaviv1 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I just removed that text. I do not think his flying an El Al plane qualifies a notable security incident. Look at the other incidents mentioned, all major incidents. Even Reid's wikipedia article does not mention this incident. -- Derwig 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that Reid's article doesn't mention it is irrelevant: wikipedia is not a very reliable source! I think it's of interest and demonstrates the efficiency of the security. Not all incidents have to involve deaths. If you want I can add it to the Reid article.

The shoulder held missile fired at the Arkia plane missed but I think that would be worth mentioning too. Telaviv1 10:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

      • The absence of the incident from the Reid article is indeed irrelevant. I still think that his flying an El Al plane should not appear in that section. If you want to demonstrate the efficiency of security protocols, consider adding the text to the security section.
      • A missile fired at a different Israeli airline plane has no place in this paragraph- It is however mentioned in the security paragraph, as the trigger for arming El Al planes with antimissiles countermeasures, see (current) reference #56. -- Derwig 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Every Landing Always Late

Is what the name stands for -you may want to mention that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.6.241 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

that's witty and was once true, nowadays they are pretty reliable Telaviv1 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have been on several flights that landed early.--Gilabrand 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty reliable? Even worse then, for example, Continental. Statistics: http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightRating/flightRatingByCarrier.do?airline=%28LY%29+El+Al&x=10&y=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.6.241 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Come come now, if it's going to have a nickname, that must be 'Tha Sha-LOOMMM PLAAaaane!' and you have to say it just like you'd say Soul Plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Secure airline

I tweeked the lead slightly since the souces are 5-6 years old.--70.109.223.188 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this to read "is considered ONE of the most secure airlines" rather than stating as fact that it IS THE most secure airline. --70.109.223.188 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
But the cited reference does say it is the most. Why did you change it? Isarig 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
To anon user- your edit has been reverted 6 times, by 4 different editors. As one of them aptly noted on his edit summary- sources do not have an expiry date. The source currently cited says the most secure. Unless a different source is cited, no reason to change the text of the article. I am going to revert (for the 7th time), and ask that before you change the text again, discuss the issue on the talk page, and try and reach a consensus (which at the moment, considering the reverts of your edit, is in favor of the original Featured Article reviewed version). -- Derwig 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Cite is 5-7 years old. Cites can and do expire. Why not leave it as is?--70.109.223.188 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Maybe a new cite can be found? I will look.
http://rss.usatoday.mlogic3g.com/detail.jsp?key=781711&rc=blog_tr Also, I see that this was already discussed above. --70.109.223.188 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
El Al not mentioned in that web page (is that a blog btw? not the best source to look for). Derwig 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ben gurion airport isn't in tel aviv

it's in Lod. the airport in tel aviv is dov hoz airport שדה דב. 83.130.62.11 23:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Controversy Section

Obviously there is some controversy if people complained (whether justified or not) Try to keep section for what it is, explaining controversies. You don't need to defend El al, just give their official take on the incident if they have one. And try to be more neutral throughout the article. I get the impression a lot of this was written by an airline exec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.244.9 (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening words

The opening words seem to be from when the article was formerly called "El Al Israel Airlines" or some such. --Dweller 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] employees

I was wondering where a mention of El Al's only female pilot could be added in the article [18]. --Shuki 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Other airlines have female pilots too, so I don't see anything noteworthy about this. Socrates2008 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.223.85 (talk)

[edit] Zürich, not Munich

The attack on the El Al plane which killed one and wounded eight took place in February 1969 in Zürich, Switzerland, not 1970 in Munich. Source: [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRitter (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] terrorism and terrorist

The word terrorism and terrorist need to deleted since, that is a subjective term  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayibe1948 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OED defines terrorist thus: "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Terrorism is listed as a noun derived from the above definition. Nouns are not subjective. --Iclavdivs (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Al cargo

Since its a seprate company with its own operating license it should have its own independant article like Lufthansa cargo, Singapore Airlines cargo, and China Cargo Airlines all of which also have their own operating licences. Infact El Al Cargo article did exist some time back but was deleted for no reason.(116.71.59.199 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC))