I've been privvy to the real life experience of being a road warrior traveling from Israel and now based in Asia. Israelis go through Europe for price but also for network. They can get to Singapore and Delhi and Tokyo and LATAM with just one stop. They can leverage the status associated with an alliance.

EK has 6 daily flights between BKK and their hub. They have an extensive network that is growing larger and larger. How many different destinations in Australia alone? The Gulf states are actually pretty stable. You aren't adding 3-4 hours to your trip due to a flyaround with a stop in AUH or DOH. There are many more people confortable flying through a stable Gulf than are willing to spend that extra time due to flying through Israel.

The novelty of a stopover in TLV is a one-time thing. Those traveling with their pocketbooks are going for low cost carriers. They aren't going to pay the prices hotels charge in TLV.

If the money exists to build an Israeli airline that could rival EK, there wouldn't be a need to wait for LY to collapse. Just start ordering planes.

And note, that when I'm posting in my role as moderator, I make that very clear. Otherwise, I'm just posting as any of the rest of us members.

Israelis go through Europe 'coz LY is not a good carrier. It does not offer a full schedule (for me, flying in or out on Saturday is a must). So even if I do get the possibility to fly LY direct (for a premium which is too high, IMHO), one of the two ways is a certain no go.

Actually, LY's service is decent. For a good fare structure, and decent security procedures for connecting pax, I can see how they do get a share of the people who would rather to fly a first-world, high-tech airline over EK. For that, one would indeed need:
1. Better IFE. Significantly better IFE. AVOD in all seats. Many movies (a-la AC/UA/US systems) including some "international" hints.
2. Newer (or at least cleaner) planes.

Note that we are the minority who care about points/miles/status:
C/J pax care about comfort and schedule. Y pax (not road warriors and the eclectic few dedicating their lives for finding 30Kstatus miles for 1349 USD, PM if you want details) care about price. Give them more than AF for 100 EUR less, and CDG pax would be happy to fly via TLV. Ask for the same price as EK, and offer more than AF, and you win yourself all the CDG->TLV->Far east pax you can handle.

And as for a stopover in TLV - landing from Europe at 12:00 p.m. and flying out at 22:00, allows for a tour to go to Jerusalem (I recall SIN or NRT having this sort of thing, as part of the airport's policy). Going for Tel Aviv will need a day of a stopover, but who cares, we are in the coolest most liberal city in 2,000 kms distance (or so we think).

And there are many good hostels in .il, for very decent prices (yes, hotels here are very expensive).

I don't disagree, but whereas (excepting bankruptcy), restructuring labor is extremely difficult, it would be very easy to fix the FFP, fix the hard product and the website. If they were able to do both, they'd be in much better shape.

Those from Europe opting to fly on Persian Gulf based carriers such as EK, with their one stop service, as oppose to taking home based carriers that offer non-stop services along with an extensive route/alliance network, do so primarily for the service and price. Those pax tend to be less time sensitive and hence the stopover in Dubai is not such a big deal for them. If EL AL is able to offer a good hard product at a competitive price, then some of those pax would transit through TLV. I am not nor have I ever advocated that TLV attempt to rival Dubai, or that EL AL compete with EK head on, what I am advocating is that EL AL offer connecting fares and try to get some of those pax. Is that really such a novel idea?

As far as the Persian Gulf being stable, and without getting into a political discussion, I would have to strongly disagree with that assertion. With the massive naval buildup in the Gulf (by the USA, Iran, Britain, Israel and others), the continued violence and disintegration of Iraq, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and the ongoing tide of the "Arab Spring", that region, by no means, can be classified as stable. If you like, I would be more than happy to forward you recent articles I read on the subject written by those who hold doctorates in political science and have devoted their entire academic careers to studying this region. You would also be hard pressed to find any articles via a google search that so much as portend the Persian Gulf as being anywhere near "stable".

As far as novelty and a one time TLV stop-over are concerned, the same can be said about Dubai. In fact, I know several people who took Emirates to Asia from the UK specifically because they were curious to see what Dubai was about and the airfare was better than that offered by BA.

If EL AL can get some of those pax, even for a one time novelty basis, by simply offering reasonably priced connecting fares through TLV, then why not do so? It would increase loads and revenues for EL AL and help the Israeli economy by injecting day tourists.

What you're missing is that the actual stability doesn't matter. The average traveler (business or leisure) will not read or care about said articles written by PhD's, as knowledgeable as they might be.
What matters to travelers is the perceived stability, and for various reasons (politics, money, news) the average traveler IMO sees Israel as being a far less safe and legitimate place to fly through. Unless/until a serious war does break out in the gulf, this will continue to be the case and there's nothing LY can do about it.

That may or may not be true. But the fact remains that the vast majority of leisure travelers book tickets based first on price, then service, then travel time. If a family of 4 from LHR wants to travel to BKK and EL AL offers them a fare which saves them a few hundred dollars total compared to the competition in exchange for them transiting through TLV then a proportion will go for it.

There is anecdotal evidence for the above. I know two people who recently flew HKG-CAI-JFK because EgyptAir by far had the best deal. Their transit time through CAI was something around 8-10 hours as well. If people today are willing to transit through CAI, the capital of a nation undergoing perpetual violence and social unrest for the past few years, then I am willing to bet they would be willing to transit through tranquil TLV as well.

What we are debating here centers on a basic premise. I believe that since EL AL flies to North America, Europe, Asia, and South Africa, they should offer competitive connecting fares through TLV for pax who, for whatever reason, would be willing to do so. I am curious as to why would that simple idea meet so much resistance particularly in light of the fact that it would require little to no investment from LY? Whether LY doing so would turn TLV into a hub or not only time will tell, but what is the big resistance against trying? If anything, doing so would fill empty seats, increase loads, and revenues with little investment.

Earlier in this thread: (Emphasis added)

Josh,

We can sit here and parse the English language a million ways, but I contend that my saying EL AL should offer similar things for pax transiting through TLV that EK does for their pax transiting through Dubai was said in the generic sense. I did not say that EL AL should specifically replicate EK's hard products/service/fleet/FF program etc. Saying so would indeed mean that I strive for EL AL to be like EK in the specific sense; which is not true. What I want EL AL to do is offer a higher level of aviation experience than it currently does and I used EK as an example in the generic sense because EK was able to turn Dubai, a city in the region not too far from TLV, into a hub; something that I think EL AL should try to do for TLV.

The confusion seems to lie with a misinterpretation of something said and meant for the generic sense (using EK as an example which could be substituted by a plethora of other airlines with good hard products/service/ff programs) into the specific sense.

This nitpicking diverts us from the real issue at hand, which I would appreciate you to address; namely: Since EL AL has routes to North America, Europe, Asia, and South Africa, what would be the harm in offering connecting fares through TLV?

There would be no harm. It also wouldn't change anything unless all the other issues are taken care of. But why wait for EL AL? Just start an airline if the investors are ready to go.

Yes it would change a lot because rather than catering exclusively its dwindling market-share of O&D pax, EL AL could also cultivate a connecting traffic market. There is not a single financially sound and industry reputable international carrier I can think of that exclusively caters to an O&D market and completely ignores cultivating a connecting market. If there is one, I would appreciate you sharing it's name with us. International airlines offering connecting traffic is the industry norm today.

As far as your suggestion for me to start an airline based in Israel to compete with EL AL goes, I am wondering what exactly does that have to do with our current lively debate about whether EL AL should offer connecting fares/services through TLV? I thought the issue/debate which has permeated this thread over the last two days centers on what EL AL should do, and not whether I should start a competing airline.

I'd love to start a competing airline but don't have the money.

You could try to buy Arkia and grow it utilizing the ideas circulated on this thread. :D

Again, you're missing an important point. If I'm a business traveler, if money is no option, I'm not flying LY. There are much better options out there, and Europe-Far East, I'm probably anyways flying direct.
If money is an issue, I'm likely looking for a combination of good value, comfort, and travel time. Let's say LY manages to make the price attractive. There's still the comfort aspect. Now, even if LY makes the price attractive AND upgrades the whole cabin, so no matter what plane I'm on and no matter what class I'm in, it's fantastic - there's still travel time. Why fly a 4 hour flight to connect in TLV, where connections aren't as fluid as in European airports, to connect to a flight that's more than 11 hours? As an example, looking at FRA-HKG, I could fly direct on LH for less than just the TLV-HKG portion. Or I could fly FRA-MUC-HKG for the same amount of time as TLV-HKG. Or any of the other carrier options. They're all just so much shorter.
If you're thinking of people looking to take a day vacation in Tel Aviv, the market isn't big enough to justify the connections. Business travelers won't do it. Families won't do it.

Actually I think you are the one missing important points.

1. The pax you mention above are not the ones EL AL would attract. Those types of pax mainly fly non-stop on carriers based where they reside & this conversation never revolved around attracting those specific sorts of pax.

2. There is a connecting market of business pax LY can go after, namely those in the Orthodox Jewish community and high tech types needing to combine Israel/India/China in one trip (and there are quite a few of those out there).

3. Leisure pax care mostly about price and if LY can offer a good price for connecting fares some (not all, not even a substantial number, but enough to fill seats and maybe down the line add frequencies) of those types of pax will take LY.

4. EL AL still has a reputation as being one of the safest airlines in the world. Potential pax who buy into this legend can be swayed to take LY, particularly if the fare is good.

5. Contrary to your belief, I think Tel Aviv or Jerusalem as a day stop over is an excellent marketing tool EL AL should use for connecting pax, and there is a market for it. Decades ago when Emirates did the same thing for Dubai there was virtually no day trip/stopover market at all for Dubai. EK helped cultivate one, however I believe there is a market for such stopover trips to either TLV or Jerusalem now and EL AL could grow that market further. (Please note: I am in no way advocating EL AL strive to become like Emirates in the specific sense when I advocate that EL AL cultivate the connecting pax day trip market for TLV and Jerusalem by pointing out that Emirates did something similar for Dubai. I am merely pointing out that the essence of my idea is possible to accomplish and highlighting the Emirates/Dubai example as one where it was accomplished.)

6. EL AL already flies to North America, Europe, South Africa, India, and the Far East. It wouldnt take much for EL AL to offer competitive connecting fares through TLV, spend a little marketing them, and cultivate this market over time. The O&D exclusive model is old news and no financially sound and reputable carrier (to my knowledge) utilizes this model. It's all about connecting traffic these days.

Again, I ask you the following question: Since EL AL has routes to North America, Europe, Asia, and South Africa, what would be the harm in offering connecting fares through TLV?

By the way - it's quite common to have higher O&D fares than connecting fares so you can't compare the TLV-HKG fare with a FRA-HKG fare. I was in London a few weeks ago and had to go to LA, somewhat last minute for a client that was paying for me to fly in business class. I was in London on a Friday and had to be in LA Sunday so I said I'd just stay the weekend in London and fly Sunday morning.

The BA round trip London to LA was something insane like $8,000 while the Tel Aviv-London-LA ticket was more like $3,500. So for about $4,500 they flew me London to Tel Aviv on Friday night, I spent Saturday with my family, and flew Sunday morning from TLV-LHR-LAX.

The point is that the Londoners who want to fly non-stop pay a premium while BA still fills its planes in markets that are more competitive. I'm willing to bet that not all the TLV-HKG business class flyers are paying the full fare, and this would allow them to get more pax, and more weekly flights, making their business more efficient.