Follow-up to Airport City: Transport Assets, Ministry Disputes and the Legal Friction Layer
Airport City's transport layer is material, but it is not a clean income-property rent roll. Rent-setting with public operators, the unresolved disputes with the Ministry of Transport, and the Tel Aviv central-bus-station legal overhang determine how much of that value is actually clean and accessible.
The Layer A Quick Read Can Miss
The main article argued that Airport City's 2025 value story ran ahead of recurring NOI. This follow-up isolates the place where that gap becomes especially sharp: the transport-asset layer. It is material, but it does not behave like a standard office or retail rent roll, because between the owner and the cash flow sit public-transport operators, the Ministry of Transport, and a meaningful legal wrapper.
The easiest mistake here is to look only at the "central bus stations" line in the operating asset mix and assume the exposure is fairly small. In practice, the operating classification shows 13 central bus stations, but the contractual transport system covers 17 central stations plus 8 sites used as parking lots, warehouses, and garages. The report also explains why the gap exists: some mixed-use properties are classified by their main use, not by the mere existence of a transport component. In other words, the transport exposure is broader than a quick glance at the property table suggests.
That matters because the layer is not marginal. About 22% of the group's real-estate assets are transport assets, and the company explicitly says it depends on a number of public-transport operators whose combined loss would be material. In 2025, revenue from that cluster of tenants reached about NIS 162.6 million, roughly 14% of group revenue. That is not a side issue. It is a real earnings layer, just one with less direct control and a much slower repricing path.
| Item | Data point | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Transport assets as a share of real-estate assets | About 22% | The exposure is not small inside the portfolio |
| Revenue from several public-transport operators | About NIS 162.6 million | Roughly 14% of group revenue in 2025 |
| Contractual transport system | 17 central stations plus 8 sites | Broader than the 13-station operating classification |
| Egged revenue under the framework agreement | About NIS 70 million | About 72% of total Egged revenue |
| Egged revenue under separate agreements | About NIS 25 million | Of that, about NIS 13 million came from the Tel Aviv central bus station |
That table gets to the point. The dependence is not only on one asset, but on an entire transport layer and an operator cluster, while Egged still remains a heavy anchor inside that layer. So the question is not whether the transport assets exist or whether they generate income. The question is how much of that layer behaves like ordinary rent, and how much behaves like a regulated contractual system that still has to move through appraisals, mediation, and court.
Why This Is Not Normal Leasing
What separates the transport layer from the rest of the portfolio is not only tenant identity. It is the pricing mechanism itself. Most transport assets were originally leased to Egged under two framework agreements signed in 1995. Those agreements give the lessor an option to extend the lease for additional periods, but they also require it to provide substitute arrangements if it does not extend. That already means the owner does not have the kind of clean ability to clear the asset that it might have in a standard office building.
The friction became even more structural after 2000. In that year, an undertaking was signed under which Maf'at has to allow other public-transport operators to lease areas in transport facilities vacated by Egged, and today the allocation of space and payments in Maf'at's properties is effectively determined by the Ministry of Transport. So even where the property is owned by the group, part of the income mechanism is shaped by a regulator whose priority is continuity of transport service, not simply maximizing rent to the owner.
That is why the disputes with the Ministry are not isolated cases. They go to the heart of who sets the price, from when, and under what authority.
| Dispute bucket | Status in the report | Economic meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Ashdod, Ramla, Rishon LeZion, and Hatzor | Section 16B has been applied; the appraiser and management expert have not yet been appointed | There is a legal path to repricing, but it has not yet translated into an actual decision |
| Jerusalem | The lease ended in 2021; the government appraiser has still not issued a decision | The updated economics are still unresolved even though they are meant to apply retroactively |
| Be'er Sheva, Tiberias, Safed, Acre, Nahariya, and Netanya | Agreements and appraisals expired in 2014; no agreed appraiser has been appointed | Use continues without a full reset of the rent economics |
| Kfar Saba, Afula, Hadera, Ashkelon, and Kiryat Shmona | An appraiser was agreed in principle, but has not yet been appointed | Even the orderly repricing path is still unfinished |
| Seven parking lots leased to Egged | An updated appraisal was agreed, but no appraiser has yet been appointed | Supporting transport assets are also still open to repricing |
The critical point is two-sided. On the one hand, public-transport operators continue to use all transport assets, and the consolidated subsidiaries continue to collect rent and management fees from them. That prevents an immediate cash-flow break. On the other hand, that is exactly what can hide the real issue: when use continues but the repricing mechanism is still unresolved, the company keeps reporting ongoing income on top of arrangements that are in part temporary, in part legacy, and in part subject to later determination.
The report gives that problem a clear legal form. In 2023, claims were filed against the State of Israel through the Ministry of Transport with respect to four central stations, Kfar Saba, Tiberias, Nahariya, and Tel Aviv. In 2024, the parties decided to run a broad mediation process covering all disputes between the consolidated subsidiaries and the Ministry, including both filed and unfiled matters. Proceedings were stayed, limitation periods were frozen, and as of the approval date of the financial statements the mediation had still not been completed.
That is the core of the thesis. The income has not stopped, but the updated price has not been locked in either. That makes the transport layer look more stable than it really is: operational continuity exists, but clean pricing continuity does not.
The Tel Aviv Central Bus Station Concentrates the Friction in One Asset
If there is one asset that explains why the transport layer deserves a separate follow-up, it is the Tel Aviv central bus station. At the end of 2025, its fair value stood at NIS 553.4 million after a NIS 61.1 million revaluation gain during the year. So this is unquestionably a material asset. But beneath that value sits a much less clean operating and legal picture.
In 2025, revenue from the asset was NIS 60.2 million, actual NOI was NIS 21.1 million, and occupancy of the commercial portion at year-end was only 31%. At the same time, the valuation relied on representative NOI of NIS 42.4 million and on prices used to determine the value of rights after station evacuation. In other words, part of the value rests on the day after, not only on the operating day of 2025 itself. That does not mean the value is wrong. It does mean there is still a meaningful distance between the asset as it operates now and the asset as it is being valued for a later-state outcome.
That gap might still be manageable if the legal wrapper were clean. It is not.
First front: Blue Square and Victory merged their claims in August 2024 into a combined NIS 47.2 million suit against a consolidated company, alleging breaches of purchase agreements, management agreements, and a 2020 settlement, including lost profits, lost rent, and lost investments. The case was referred to mediation, but as of the approval date of the statements the mediation had not even started, and the company says it cannot yet assess the claim's prospects.
Second front: In April 2025, a motion for class certification was filed against the management company, Nitsba Holdings, and the Tel Aviv central bus station company, alleging overcharging of management fees, improper cost allocation, and poor maintenance standards in the complex. The estimated amount of allegedly excess management fees stands at about NIS 189.7 million. In September 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but the court rejected it and held that the case requires factual inquiry. Another pretrial hearing was set for September 2026, and the company states that at this stage it cannot assess the motion's prospects.
Third front: In August 2025, the district court dismissed a claim by an organization of business owners at the Tel Aviv station seeking a declaration that areas other than shops and public-transport terminals are jointly owned property and that the claimants are therefore entitled to part of the future building rights. In November 2025, an appeal was filed, and as of the reporting date it had not yet been heard. So even after a favorable district-court ruling, the future-rights layer is not fully clean.
Fourth front: A class-certification motion over air pollution still hangs above the station. After the reporting date, three evidentiary hearings were already held in February 2026 and briefing deadlines were set. The company believes the chance of certification is lower than the chance of rejection, but the fact that the proceeding is already in the evidence stage keeps the station inside a risk perimeter that is not merely operational.
That chart is not meant to say those amounts will be paid. It is meant to show why the Tel Aviv central bus station cannot be read only through its fair-value line. Even if some of these processes end favorably for the company, their very existence delays a full clean-up of the asset and weighs on the path from accounting value to value that can actually be stabilized or monetized.
What This Means for the Thesis
Airport City's transport layer is not a collapse story, but it is also not a story of clean passive rent. Cash flow continues because public-transport operators keep using the assets and the company keeps collecting rent and management fees. That is the comforting side. The less comfortable side is that the economics of part of those assets are still open, sometimes in front of an appraiser who has not yet been appointed, sometimes inside a broad mediation with the Ministry of Transport, and sometimes inside the dense legal wrapper of the Tel Aviv central bus station.
So if the main article argued that 2025 value moved ahead of NOI, the transport layer requires an even harder version of the same sentence: here, value is running ahead not only of NOI, but also of regulatory and legal clean-up. That does not cancel the value. It does mean part of that value is still waiting for determination, resolution, or proof.
The checkpoints ahead are fairly clear. Does the broad mediation with the Ministry turn operational continuity into pricing continuity. Are the appraisers and experts finally appointed so rent and management fees can be updated. And does the Tel Aviv central bus station begin to move from an asset defined by planning optionality and a heavy legal file toward one the market can read through cleaner operations and cleaner legal footing.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.