Originally Posted by
entropy
I don't think they care (like , at all) . End Users won't matter, but its possible the airlines could make a stink and work something out, United is probably the most able to, being US-based and having the most long hauls. TK probably wouldn't politically, and LH won't even fly widebodies anymore.
In the hypothetical situation that UA made a stink about it, then perhaps something would change. (Not sure whether UA would need to complain to Dan or IAA.)
But UA would need to really complain, not just send a letter. And for that to happen, there would need to be serious pressure placed on UA. Problem is, who would place that pressure? Shareholders won't - as long as UA is profitable, why rock the boat? UA isn't going to do it out of generosity of the heart - they keep flying full Polaris with the crappy lounges, and know that nicer lounges will end up costing them more money but won't likely lead to any increase in their loads (which can't get much bigger barring up-gauging and/or new cities, higher frequency). But that isn't happening just because of a better lounge.
TLV is the only (real) option if you want Israel, and there's a captive audience of Israel-based flyers and pax who specifically need to go to Israel. It's not like the competition offers something better to make it worth UA's while to try and change. (LY offers better lounges, but is so much worse in other ways that the lounge isn't what's making or breaking it.)