Passengers need to have some rights in these types of situations. Under Nevada law, it is kidnapping if you hold someone without their consent. When O.J. Simpson said "nobody leaves this room" it was kidnapping under the law even though it was in the victims own hotel room.
The industry's non sequitur responses to the idea of regulation are absurd. The make it seem like the passengers are the problem, not the airline.
We all try to be reasonable travelers but a 7 to 9 hour wait on a tarmac is not reasonable. People like me may have prescription medications in their checked bags that they can't get to when needed. Does somebody have to die before the problem gets addressed?

Posted By Tom B. on September 11, 2009, 12:55 PM

Tob B...I am assuming that you are NOT a frequent flyer?! Why would you EVER put medication in a checked bag?

Posted By silly sally on September 12, 2009, 8:42 AM

Yes there should be a law as the airlines and airport terminal operators have demonstrated poor judgment in these situations and leadership from mgmt is nonexistent when the problems occur. Fines after the occurrence are not timely to the 200,000 people impacted and pittance to the airline/airport. It is very easy to say we need need legislation, as the response from this so called task force is clearly out of step and can't even articulate a compromise for a solution. The captain should of course make a determination but that relies too heavily on him and after all he is an employee who answers to the union and his employer which could impact his perspective.

Posted By wiseone on September 14, 2009, 8:45 AM

Yes, I support this law.

Also, I have a metal knee and it takes me 20 minutes every time to get through security. Why can't I be given some sort of card to get me through?

Also, it is stupid still having to take shoes off. What will we have to do after some crazy is caught trying to smuggle a bomb on board in his underpants?

Posted By nick phillips on September 14, 2009, 10:17 AM

Yes...there should be a law, but how will it
be enforced?
The airlines will enforce it? Ha! Ha! tell me another one.

Posted By Stan on September 14, 2009, 10:22 AM

Yes. There should be a room at all airports to let delayed planes disembark till the plane is ready to take off. It should be secure so no security would be necessary. I have spent 7 hours on a plane sitting on the tarmack. It is not a pretty site.

Posted By sue smith on September 14, 2009, 10:26 AM

I think that if there is a 3-hour delay maybe they don't have to let us off, but they should be forced to give us free meals (though perhaps alcoholic drinks would not be a good thing), the way it used to be on airlines: free food and soft drinks to make our interminable wait more bearable. I mean the fact that they keep you is bad enough, but they starve you too. Once they start losing money from all the meals they are forced to give out they'll start fixing stuff. They might not be able to let us off on the tarmac but they can sure drive a food truck up to the airplane to load up our free meals.

Posted By Joe S. on September 14, 2009, 10:35 AM

Tarmac waits, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. More laws will not change anything. They will add to the problem.
Our airports are like our highways, still in the 20th century. Where has all the tax money gone that is to be used to maintain & improve these systems?

Posted By mark neid on September 14, 2009, 10:48 AM

I worked for a airline in the late 60's. Lost & found was one of my positions at the airport. Med's in checked bag was a problem then as today. Will passengers ever learn? At a airport some people will get lost in a phone booth on the way to the restroom

Posted By mark neid on September 14, 2009, 10:59 AM

It should be only an hour and let people off. It's enough they pack u in like sardines for the normal time of the flight, but add 1 thru any number of hours sitting there is awful. One flight on US Airways a few years ago, the windshield cracked, we diverted to Belgium to have it replaced by KLM it took 6 hours, they let us off in the airport and gave us a voucher for food and drinks, and had water as we walked out. It wasn't bad at all. If that had happened in the U.S.S.A. I'm sure we would have had to stay on the plane. Not much fun flying with TSA and sardine can seating.

Posted By Tom on September 14, 2009, 11:16 AM

To keep passengers stranded on the tarmac for long periods of time is horrible. You're captive without facilities, food, whatever ... air becomes a luxury and for anyone who is the least bit claustrophobic, it's a nightmare. Believe me, I fly often and not claustrophobic but after sitting on the tarmac for 6 hours once in my life, I would have killed for fresh air and mobility. So yes, passengers should be allowed to disembark if it's deemed safe after 3 hours of being confined.

Posted By Lyn on September 14, 2009, 11:17 AM

If "only" 200K people have been so stranded then the airlines shouldn't be too worried about this law. If it truly is a rare occurrence then they have nothing to fear. But as they have proven to be totally incapable of treating people with some humanity they ought to be punished.

Perhaps there are some unintended consequences. But if I have been stuck sitting there for at least 3 hours I would guess I am not likely to be getting to my destination any time soon anyway. Keeping people trapped in those tightly confined conditions with no comfort possible is certainly reason enough to require some common sense solutions.

Perhaps this will force the airlines to be smarter about scheduling. And if there are obvious ground delays that will keep the aircraft sitting for hours maybe they will be smart enough to allow people to wait inside the airport and not on board the a/c.

Posted By Glenn A on September 14, 2009, 11:19 AM

My daughter has an ICD (internal cardio-defibrillator) and doesn't have to go thru the machines at airport security. We tell them and they do a check separately and she is always finished by the time I have gotten thru security and put my shoes back on and get my carry ons repacked. Although we have a letter from her doctors nobody has ever asked for proof, I guess her scars are enough for them.

Posted By atp2007 on September 14, 2009, 11:53 AM

We don't need more laws; we just need to exercise common sense.

Posted By May P. on September 14, 2009, 12:04 PM

I'll bet there was no "minority" who didn't want to deplane on either the 7-hour or the 9-hour incident. What are these people thinking? Even 3 hours is too long--believe me, I have been there, done that. We had a delay in St. Louis a few years ago that caused us to miss the first day of a cruise in Hawaii. I notice there is no mention of the effect on the crew of these aircraft. I know there are time limits on how many continuous hours they are allowed to work.

Posted By John G on September 14, 2009, 12:17 PM

Actually, we do punish the whole block for a couple of bad kids -- seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc. -- all in the name of safety, which is what we are talking about here. Denial of food, water and, in some cases, toilets for extended periods is a health issue, not just an inconvenience.

Posted By Dean R on September 14, 2009, 12:21 PM

I think that airlines should have to let you off of the plane after a three hour delay. There will have to be some penalty before the airlines will comply.

Posted By Ed on September 14, 2009, 12:41 PM

I have sat on a tarmc for 3+ hours, but it was in Italy, on American Airlines, and I don't know what the rights are in a foreign country. I guess they can only be enforced in the U.S. for U.S. aircraft.
It is very difficult, especially after a long international overnight flight, to be exhausted and starving and still sitting cramped upright, staring at the same dingy seatback you've seen for 8 hours already. There is no food left on the plane after the long haul, so you have to rely on any stash you might have left in your carry-on to keep blood sugar regulated.
What's worse is the sheer exhaustion after sitting for so long in tiny coach seats and being able to see the terminal RIGHT THERE in front of you, taunting you, with it's human-sized restrooms, promises of juice and sandwiches, and space to walk around in.
I feel for the crew, as well, because from what I've read elsewhere they don't get paid for all their time spent in the aircraft, which should be illegal as far as I am concerned. They have to maintain composure in a hostile environment not of their making. It is a horrible situation all the way around.
Three hours really should be a maximum. I was ready to climb over some people, open the emergency exit and go to Italian prison just to get off that damned airplane, and luckily we got fuel (siphoned from an old Italian jet...don't get me started) and were cleared to leave before I could take matters into my own claustrophobic little hands.
In the U.S. I think we should at least have clear laws for domestic flights that mandate access to clean restrooms and food, and that will include some form of just compensation for the crew that includes rest and applicable overtime pay. Also, the size of seats in coach are so small that many people risk clotting in their veins and strokes from being unable to move around for so long, and it's dangerous to physical health, (and to mental health for some folks).

Posted By thepixinator on September 14, 2009, 12:43 PM

Yes, I am definitely in favor of this law. How does the Air Transport Assn of America figure it will cause more cancellations, delays, inconvenience and cost? All they have to do is roll a set of stairs to the plane so the people can disembark and let them wait inside the airport. I would gladly be inconvenienced so this could happen if I were assured that it meant that I would never be a victim of a 9 hour delay in a stinking (from the bathrooms) plane with no food or water. As far as the Tarmac Delay Task Force saying that Airlines should voluntarily regulate themselves - well, that is the best joke I have heard in a long time. Look how well they have been doing so far.

Posted By Lila Held on September 14, 2009, 12:45 PM

Passengers are customers, not prisoners. Even three hours is shameful. No other business has such domain over persons who are paying for their services.

Posted By OldCabanaGuy on September 14, 2009, 12:48 PM

Yes, definitely should be a time limit for sitting on the tarmac. Flying with screaming babies is one thing but sitting in a closed aircraft with no idea of one the plane will take off with one is sheer torture. Plus the smell of bathrooms that are on overload is nauseating and no one should have to suffer through that. Flying is not fun anymore. There is absolutely no concern for the passengers comfort. I have had so many flights delayed, missed connections, seat reservations changed, delayed luggage that arrived with contents soaking wet from having sat on the tarmac in a storm, etc., etc., etc. Customer service reps are cold and uncaring. It has become a nightmare!

Posted By Judy Ball on September 14, 2009, 12:58 PM

I am claustrophobic, and anything more than 45 minutes would be torture for me, even if I took my Xanax!! Those who wish to deplane and wait in the airport should be allowed to do so until 30 minutes before the plane will be allowed to line up for takeoff. If we are not on time for a flight, it is our tough luck, so the airlines should be required to either let us off for the time, or reschedule their flights so we don't have these horrific 3,6,7,9 hour delays sitting on the cramped airplane.

Posted By Gloria M. on September 14, 2009, 12:59 PM

I think there should be a law that persons can leave the plane after no more than one hour. It is absurd to expect otherwise. No one needs to sit for long periods of time, particularly the elderly due to blood clots, etc. It would create havoc for the whole plane to be up and moving around, also moms with little ones don't deserve this. Maybe we should get the rail system up and running. I, for one, would be extremely happy.

Posted By Genie H. on September 14, 2009, 1:02 PM

I think even 3 hours is too long. Why can't we work on a system whereby planes are 'scheduled' for a departure 'slot' when there are weather related or other warranted delays? Retailers do it with a simple 'Take a number' process. First come first go.

All that would be required would be for someone to call 'Schedule Central' to get a number. You don't load the plane until your number is called. Our plane would then take its place in a short line when our number comes up. Timing is gradually perfected until you spend less than 30 minutes on the tarmac. I gotta believe we are smart enough to do that.

I can understand having to wait for various legitimate reasons such as bad weather ... but ... I would sure as heck prefer to wait at the gate than inside a sardine can.

Posted By Deleano on September 14, 2009, 1:07 PM

"Self-regulation" hasn't worked yet!

Posted By Capt Obvious on September 14, 2009, 1:12 PM

It's ridiculous to trap people on a plane for more than 3 hours! An hour is too long! There is no reason why a plane could not taxi back to a terminal and release its hostages! I've been stuck on a plane for over 2 hours and after 30 minutes, I had had enough. If it ever happens again, I will be calling the police to report a kidnapping. Restrooms out of order, well, let's just say I hope the person in back of me isn't using the space underneath my seat for storage. No food? That's ok, I usually bring something with me, and that something will be spilled ALL over plane. I don't know who the airlines think they are, but they are not above the law or common decency. I'm tired of paying to be treated like dirt.

Posted By Liz R on September 14, 2009, 1:20 PM

I don't support this law. The incidences of such long tarmac delays are rare and involve unusual circumstances. Most people just want to get to their destination. Forcing planes to return to the gate and disembark passengers will end up forcing entire flights to get cancelled and the entire planeload of passengers even more severely inconvenienced, when a few more minutes of delay might have been enough for the flight to continue on its way.

However, I am assuming that the plane still has serviceable lavatories and at least water available for people to drink. Any time the toilets become unusable, I think that warrants servicing them or returning to the gate.

Most of the long delays I've read about and experienced have been weather related, and returning to the terminal would not have gotten anyone to their destination more quickly -- exactly the opposite would have been the result. I don't think it's fair that a few crybabies get to dole out punishment and a huge inconvenience on the rest of the travelers who simply want to get on with it as soon as possible.

Posted By Daviator on September 14, 2009, 1:20 PM

Absolutely, there should be legislation that imposes a reasonable upper hour limit for passengers forced to sit in a plane on the tarmac. I once sat on the runway in Atlanta with family members (including a 6 week old baby)for approximately 4 hours--simply because there was light snow. What was especially upsetting to us was that it was our destination---we could see the terminal windows from the plane, yet no one was allowed to deplane.

Posted By L Jenkins on September 14, 2009, 1:23 PM

Let's look at this a little more realistically than "oh my knee" or "I put my meds in my suitcase". This needs to be address from a gate control issue. Jets should not be cleared from the gate until there is a reasonable time wait on the tarmac. BUT the customer also has a large part in this. If you are going to mill around the airport instead of remaining on the aircraft while your flight is delayed , say due to bad weather in DFW, keep your ears open to flight pages and gate announcements. Its time people start thinking about the whole situation and not their own little worlds. And if you really want a situation to compare it to, research the aircraft that had to hold off the gate for 24 hours due to a tai-fun - it was too dangerous to bring the aircraft in....NRT around 1995-97 time frame.

Posted By MIm on September 14, 2009, 1:23 PM

yes, they should have this right and it should be the law. if they want to wait four hours, maybe that is ok, but after that, deplane. the airlines will adjust fine. There need to be legal minumum service standards.

Posted By john wetrherhold on September 14, 2009, 1:24 PM

It is inhumane to keep people trapped in a plane,No AC,bathrooms or anything to drink.

Posted By Lee Gromadzki on September 14, 2009, 1:27 PM

I think there needs to be limits on how long a plane sits on the tarmac with passengers, but the rule needs to be hardballed. Leaving pilots to make the decision won't work. They are worried about missing a take-off time. No person should be subjected to long waits in a plane on the ground. It is loud and when the toilets stop working and the food is gone it becomes unhealthy.

Posted By Mike on September 14, 2009, 1:30 PM

Even Three hours is too long - Definitely pass the law even if the passengers have to deplane on the emergency slides.

Posted By Mike on September 14, 2009, 1:49 PM

3 hours is too long in my opinion. And the security issue is just a misdirection. As long as you don't pass through the initial security check point you won't have to be rechecked again. What is the difference between those that have been waiting in the airport waiting area and those that have been waiting (captive) in a plane?

Posted By MA on September 14, 2009, 2:01 PM

I am diabetic. I cannot sit for 5 or 6 hours with nothing to eat. It is dangerous to my physical health...to say nothing of my mental health. With my trusty little cell phone, I intend to call local police, then the state police...and of course, to the local news media. Maybe a hubbub and a gaggle of people will knock some sense into a system that is broken. The airline management (who will get after a pilot who makes a "bad" decision for the bottom line) will always think of profit and not passenger comfort. "If it is safe" be darned. Three hours is more than enough for anyone to get a solution...or go back to the drawing board (terminal). Take the decisions away from the airlines; make it manditory. Stupidity cannot be allowed to rule.

Posted By Paul L. on September 14, 2009, 2:06 PM

Pay the passangers. $200 for each 1/4 hour above one hour. That would get someone attention pretty fast. This would be taken from the top fifteen executives bonus for that year. You talk about getting some action. That would do it. You get into the big boys pockets I bet you could get a nice resolution of the problem.

Posted By jtimm on September 14, 2009, 2:07 PM

Yes there should be a law
but there isn't and I was a frequent flyer..American and Delta mostly and I was held hostage..the longest was 5 hours for a flight that would have taken me 4 hours to drive...

I complained and was treated as a nut.

So I voted with my pocketbook. I NEVER fly now unless its over 600 miles and an emergency.

I almost missed my son's wedding because of unneccessarily cancelled flights out of DFW.

But again the only EFFECTIVE way to deal with this is to vote with your money.

Frequent flyers...pick an airline and boycott them this week telling thru media why you doing it..then next week pick another ...and so on.

But no I will NOT be held hostage again...I am now OLD and will have a medical emergency after the first two hours...

Posted By krkyoldhag on September 14, 2009, 2:13 PM

Yes, there should be a law. People can develop bloodclots in their legs with long delays which can be life threatening. I think two hours is long enough wait.

Posted By Ann E. Boulanger on September 14, 2009, 2:13 PM

YES - there should be a law as the airlines do not seem to care about their PACs. Even 3 hours is too long.

Posted By Roger Morefield on September 14, 2009, 2:14 PM

2 hours sounds right to me. How about calling 911 from your seat and asking to be rescued from a kidnapping if they hold you against your will? You certainly haven't given up all your rights just because you purchased a ticket.

Posted By Bill on September 14, 2009, 2:18 PM

Absolutely! Being crammed into a plane, just sitting there, with no proper air, toilets, or water is a crime. Let us off for God's sake! Travelling is just horrible these days, this makes it even worse!

Posted By pdelaney on September 14, 2009, 2:19 PM

I support this law and anything that gets the airlines back into the habit of doing what they say, when they say they'll do it. If the airlines still expect me to pay their price to fly me and my stuff to the destination on the ticket at roughly the time we've agreed upon, it shouldn't be that crazy to expect that they'll do it.

I say we demand one better than this proposed law. Check out Regulation 261 passed in the EU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_261/2004. If your flight is cancelled or massively delayed, the airline owes you money for the inconvenience.

Perhaps the threat of financial penalty might actually get the airlines back to doing what we all pay them to do: fly us according to their advertised schedule, not the one they make up once we're sitting at the gate or on the plane.

Posted By Valerie on September 14, 2009, 2:23 PM

Yes, this law is needed. This is coming from both a passenger and a travel agency owner who has been in the business of travel for 26 years.
Sue Smith's idea of a waiting room has merit. David Castelveter's comments are the same old spin put on a situation that is not going to go away or get better on its own. Take notice he did not address feeding passengers or the overfilled toilets. As far as policing this, I would suggest the airports have people from their staffs report all problems with the airlines. This info would be filed with FAA just as ontime ratings are and then reported to the public.

For everyone who flies, they need to know it could be them sitting on a plane with no food, no beverages and toilets so over full that you have a major health hazard. Talk about hell on earth.

Let's put some pressure on Congress not to fall for the typical lobbying tricks of some members of the airline industry.

Posted By Barbara Clark on September 14, 2009, 2:23 PM

If a plane is delayed due to weather or mechanical, they need to be ready to go when all is clear so I understand that. But...I do think it should be announced at the gate, especially with weather, and give the passengers the choice to board, knowing of the possibility of delays. I imagine most will take the chance and board.

If passengers board, then this would be their acceptance of the possibility. I do think the airlines should be prepared though with (free) food/water for passengers for long delays, and obviously clean & ready facilities.

And if they suspect of mechanical taking longer than a couple hrs, same applies. Though there are the times when no one knows until almost takeoff time...then an assessment should be made at the repairs needed and at that time, passengers given the choice to get off or stay on board. But it should also be known that when the plane is ready to go, it is going, whether you are on or not.

Don't think we need a new law to help with this issue.

Posted By Denise G on September 14, 2009, 2:31 PM

Three hours seems reasonable but EVERY delayed situation is unique and should be up to the airlines/pilot's discretion. I sat on the tarmac for 2-1/2 hours this past spring waiting out a storm that kept moving around the airport (Atlanta), then eventually took out the control tower for 45 mintues (lightning strike). Yes, the delay was uncomfortable but going back to the terminal would have delayed us even more. As it was, as soon as they tower was back up, we were on our way. Imagine if we were sent back to the terminal...it would have taken longer to reload the plane (including rounding up wayward passengers), get the plane back in line, etc.

Posted By Tina C on September 14, 2009, 2:41 PM

Yes, I absolutely think there should be a law to help stranded passengers and 3 hours is generous for the airlines... I would rather see 2 hours! I probably would have been a raving maniac or have died from an asthma attack in the stifling air had I been one of those left in the plane for 9 hours. Those who fly regularly already worry about blood clots from immobility on long flights why should we be subjected to those same risks when the plane is on the ground!!!! Airlines argue that it takes too much time to do the right thing but everyone knows how quickly a plane can be emptied and if luggage is allowed to be left on while minor repairs are being done it would be even quicker. Getting passengers back on board again not a difficult feat. They do not want to be held accountable for their mistakes and I think it is high time someone makes sure they cannot get away with trapping people any longer.

Posted By KM on September 14, 2009, 2:43 PM

2 Hours is reasonable; 3 hours is unlawful restraint (kidnapping); more than that is insanity.

Posted By jack lyons on September 14, 2009, 2:44 PM

ONE HOUR MAX! Anything else is torture.

Posted By Holly W on September 14, 2009, 2:54 PM

Absolutely, yes!

As a frequent flier for twenty years, it is imperative that the rights of passengers be recognized and respected. Without legislation, the airlines will continue to treat passengers as chattel, which was not the case years ago.

What amazes me is the difference between the quality of customer service provided by US airlines versus international airlines -- the US airlines are abysmal.

Posted By Linda Caporaletti on September 14, 2009, 3:10 PM

Threee hours is the max anyone should be held captive on an airplane. Surely catering trucks and "honey bucket" carts should be able to service aircraft to ensure there is food and sanitary facilities available. Of course, this takes coordination by the airline ground dispatchers.

Ground control allocates takeoff slots so why, after a plane has been on the tarmac two hours, can't they allow them to go to a jetway and hold incoming flights on the tarmac for their two hours "slot?"

It appears this happens by individual airlines because some dispatcher in a distant "ivory palace," who is warm/cool and comfortable with his meal in the icebox and a rest room at his beck and call, doesn't want to make a decision to get the plane back to a vacant jetway lest he loses a takeoff slot.

If it is a plane that has just landed, after a minimum delay, a plane at the jetway should be taxied out to a holding point and the arrival sent to that jetway to disembark, loaded, and then pulled back from the jetway if another flight has arrived.

Posted By Evan Jackson on September 14, 2009, 3:14 PM

I would like to know what business it is of the senate to decide such silly situations? If you don't like the way you are treated on an airline, don't use it again. Vote with your feet, that is the capitalist system. Where is the personal responsibility?

Posted By Richard F on September 14, 2009, 3:16 PM

There should be a law, we as passengers should have some rights. If it is ultimately left up to the captain, then you are right back to where we started before the law.

Posted By Beverly on September 14, 2009, 3:18 PM

Better than a 3 hour law with a hundred loopholes and inconvenience to everyone... How about financial compensation to the pasengers? I bet that would get the airlines moving. Nothing like a little incentive.

Posted By G. Merino on September 14, 2009, 3:21 PM

I think 3 hours is too long. But if we have to compromise - so be it. I've been on a plane and they immediately told us to get off - that there would be a delay or they had to fix something. But this was at LAX.
This bill wouldn't have happened without Kate Hanna.
FlyersRights.org is a group formed and headed by Kate Hanna (an ordinary citizen, being a stranded passenger that decided to take action)who helped to get the bill authored and before the Congress and who has worked tirelessly to get this bill passed for the last couple of years.
Her story is a study of how ordinary people can get extraordinary things done and how our system of bills actually works.

Check out the website:
FlyersRights.org
Email Kate Hanna:
kate@flyersrights.org

Posted By Kelly D on September 14, 2009, 3:25 PM

I go along with the three hour rule. Also, why are passangers sitting on the runway for three or more hours if it not an emergency? Has anyone ever considered to open the emergency doors and slide out of the plane. Sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands!!!!

Posted By Monika Uriel on September 14, 2009, 3:29 PM

I agree with Joe. The airlines should be penalized at some point financially. When it starts to impact their bottom line then they will do something about it that is appropriate. Money talks and BS walks. It is very simple. The question is what is the right goad for the airlines to make them behave in a more humane fashion.

Posted By Brian on September 14, 2009, 3:30 PM

Yes, airlines should be required by law to allow customers to return to a terminal if they have been required to wait on the tarmac for an excessive amount of time, which I believe should be capped at 2 hours, not 3. I recently spent 2 hours on the tarmac in Philadelphia. There were several young children and babies on the flight and it was a grueling experience for them, their parents, and all involved. The flight attendants walked the aisle once with a single bottle of water and plastic cups. They didn't want to take out the food and beverage carts because they thought we might be taking off at any time, even though the pilot had stated that we went from being 2nd in line to 20th in line due to a change in direction of outgoing and incoming flights (huh?). So , common sense would dictate that we wouldn't be leaving "at any moment" if we're 20th in line. Since the airlines are obviously not self-regulating in a responsible manner regarding tarmac delays, it seems necessary to legislate relief for travelers/customers (who have paid for the incredibly poor customer "service").

Posted By Carol on September 14, 2009, 3:32 PM

ARe you all crazy. Do you actually think the airlines want to be late. Dont you realize how much it costs for the to be late> Quit looking at your navels.

Posted By maggie Rogers on September 14, 2009, 3:43 PM

I agree with the 1-hour proposal!! I have been on planes sitting on the tarmac, many times on the way HOME when we've already landed at my HOME airport and could have been home in my own house literally hours ago if the plane had come in on schedule. Plus they do not inform you about what is going on, they just leave you there to suffer with lack of facilities, food and leave us all in danger of blood clots and heart attacks. Will anyone care about passengers who have paid literally thousands of $$$ to get on this damn plane, or not until a perfectly healthy person dies of stroke from a blood clot that was preventable by walking around??

Posted By M.P. on September 14, 2009, 3:44 PM

Three hours is still way too long to be cooped up in a plane. One hour maximum, then I want to get off the plane and check into renting a car instead.

Posted By RLW on September 14, 2009, 3:49 PM

I wholeheartedly support such legislation, the airlines suck at self-regulation. I would call police after an hour on the tarmac.

Posted By Stephanie on September 14, 2009, 3:55 PM

Airline rules and regulations urgently need to be structured to specify the length of time for passengers to sit on the tarmac, so that those with health issues, children etc., or connections can alter their arrangements in a timely, needed manner, without unncessary and often unpleasant delays.

I often travel internationally for business, and if I am sitting on a tarmac for several unplanned hours, not only will it delay me and I miss the flight, but it inconveniences everyone involved; the airline for rerouting me and getting a new flight, the baggage handlers for getting my travel gear back to me for the changed flight, the hotel for the missed reservation, the pick up car, and most of all, the factories, and my business associates and colleagues I am flying to meet.

Posted By Starr Perry on September 14, 2009, 3:58 PM

What is it with all of these people that want a law to take care of them, they must be the same ones that sue at the drop of a hat. People, its called competition. When a carrier treats you like dirt stop flying them and tell everyone you know to do the same and bad mouth the _ell out of them at every chance you get. You may not get results right away but you will in time and it will be much more effective. Don't pass a law, get them out of business thats even better.

Posted By DeeJay on September 14, 2009, 4:07 PM

heck yeah. False imprisonment would be a crime under any other circumstances. The airline crews should be happy they're not getting lynched when they force people to stay aboard. It's sad to have to legislate common sense, but this is America -- sense isn't so common here.

Posted By OmarS on September 14, 2009, 4:21 PM

It all boils down to the pay structure at the US airlines. Flight crews are paid hourly, from the moment the plane leaves the gate, to when the doors open at the destination (yes, that means they are not getting paid when they greet and seat you, when you get on the plane).

They would rather have everybody on the plane, sitting on the tarmac, than have you walking around the airport, having something to do while the flight is delayed, as they are getting paid for the time spent in the 'ball-park'.

Posted By Nicko on September 14, 2009, 4:27 PM

Definitely there needs to be a law, since the airlines have had free rein for much too long, and customer service is nonexistent. A few years ago we were still sitting on the ground at Heathrow when we should have been landing in Chicago. No offers of food, water, or even information about what was going on or when we might anticipate leaving. Then, after finally being re-boarded on a different plane and thinking that at last we were headed home.....NO!! By then, the flight crew's "working time" had expired and we had to wait even longer for a new crew to arrive....something that should have been dealt with during all the hours we were sitting there. American didn't offer anything in the way of reimbursement and any complaints were treated as an inconvenience to the company. The situation is awful and will get worse unless serious changes are made AND ENFORCED.

Posted By JayKay on September 14, 2009, 4:35 PM

I'm with Valerie! Rather than instituting a law allowing passengers to disembark after 3 hours of delay, I think the airlines should be penalized for the delay. They already nickel and dime the public to bankruptcy with their fees for what seems like EVERY little thing. Obviously, the airlines have no control over things like weather, but in the event of mechanical delays, I think the airline should have to give refunds using a sliding scale of x% per each hour of delay. Vouchers for free travel should not be a consideration because then we'd only be able to fly on odd-numbered Tuesdays in months than end in "L".

Just my opinion...

Posted By Polly on September 14, 2009, 4:44 PM

Yes 3 hour max rule is good. ALSO should have a rule if you are dropped off at an airport other than the one you were scheduled for. They dropped us at DULLES instead of National because we had a 4 hour weather delay in Chicago. No airline reps were there to meet us and it cost about $70.00 to downtown DC from Dulles by Taxi. It was a mess.
No reimbursment given. They should pay for 2 or three buses to pick people up when that happens. The Aircrew could have radio'd in the necessary information. No one will read or care about this post, but I got it off my mind for nopw.

Posted By W Baade on September 14, 2009, 4:54 PM

Fix the air traffic control system! This will eliminate many of the 3-hour problems.

Posted By Rich on September 14, 2009, 5:14 PM

Yes! It is ridiculous that we are even having this conversation. We pay the airlines to transport us in a safe and timely manner; not to imprison us and waste our time. It is understandable that things happen beyond their control, but we should always be put first; not their greed and ego.

Daniel Las Vegas

Posted By Daniel on September 14, 2009, 5:15 PM

I believe the EU has a great law against such delays in the planes. Much better than 3 hours which you are proposing. Lord, when toilets stop working who is such a sadist as to make needy people wait in a stinking plane!

Posted By roberta on September 14, 2009, 5:22 PM

No where in any of these writings has anyone mentioned that FAA Regulations require a departing plane to wait on the ground until the weather is suitable for the plane to land at its destination, or it must be rerouted to another airport. Thereforetheresponsibility lies with the airline to inform the PAX about the situation and provide as much comfort to them as possible and to keep them informed about the weather delays at their distination. Alternate transportation should be offered.

Posted By Thomas J. Duncan on September 14, 2009, 5:23 PM

Absolutely there should be a law and in reality, it should be less than three hours, especially if takeoff won't be taking place in the near future. My husband and I had a three + hour delay happen to us when leaving the Caribbean Island of Curucao. It was sheer torture sitting in a metal tube, with no water in the middle of July. I agree with others above, the airline should be penalized for the delay. Unfortunately they would probably find a way to pass that bill on to paying customers.

Posted By P. Small on September 14, 2009, 5:30 PM

Come on, folks. The captain has very little to do with when he takes off. That is controlled by the airport unless it is a mechanical problem or an emergency on board. You think he wants to sit there and wait any more than you do? Of course if it is a weather problem, there is nothing anyone can do, except for allowing the plane to return to the terminal and disembark the passengers, which is what should happen after one hour. If it's a weather problem, the airline shouldn't be held responsible, but they should take responsibility for the comfort and health of the passengers.

I don't advise anyone to call 911 unless you consult your attorney first, because false reporting is a crime. So is opening an emergency exit without being instructed to do so by the crew.

Posted By John G on September 14, 2009, 5:33 PM

I support the 3 hour rule, and in fact believe it should be 1 hour. I've had "discussions" with flight attendants who will not permit restroom use during a prolonged wait on the tarmac, citing FAA regulations. These waits also consume fuel.

Posted By Warren B on September 14, 2009, 5:34 PM

YES, YES, YES.
Passengers should be able to deplane after 3 hours.
I did not pay for an airline ticket to be held prisoner.

Posted By Pat on September 14, 2009, 5:36 PM

To those that say use another airline: sometimes, depending on where a person lives and the destination, there is no option to choose another airline, because there is only one that can get him from his home airport to his desired destination. Fortunately I have never had to sit on the tarmac for an extended period of time. Being without usable restrooms would be an intolerable situation. And people have to be able to move around to avoid blood clots and swelling. These are health issues, and lack of food or water is another. Since we are not allowed to carry water onboard, and since the airlines are often stingy with their water, lack of water is a serious problem.

Posted By vbohn on September 14, 2009, 5:41 PM

Yes, three hour max rule is a good one. I have sat on the tarmac on two Northwest flights for several hours because of mechanical problems. When I missed my flight to Paris and just wanted to go back home...NWA was no help at all. Said they could send me home for an additional $800. Bad customer service and they just didn't care.

Posted By Irene on September 14, 2009, 5:46 PM

Years ago some airport surfaces where surfaced with a tar/McAdam surface. To my knowledge tarmac is slang for this purpose and is not a location on the airport. Where aircraft are held is in the air, at the departure airport wating for conditions at the arrival airport, on the ramp, at the gate, on the taxiway or more rarely on a runway. It might be appropriate for there to be different rules for these different holding situations. Ultimately the pilot has primary responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft, it seems to me any hold in whatever circumstance over about one hour is bordering on the unsafe for a variety of reasons. Better rules are certainly needed; the rule makers might start with passengers' health and safety as the guiding basis.

Posted By Irv Summers on September 14, 2009, 5:46 PM

We must have a law limiting time waiting on the tarmack. To me, 3 hours is too long. However, if that is all that we can legislate, then we MUST do so. We have already left it up to the airlines and have seen 7, 8, and 9 hour delays. It is inhumane.

Posted By Linda Croglia on September 14, 2009, 5:47 PM

Absolutely!! I think it should be a two-hour maximum, personally. Also, they should allow people with bladder diseases to use the restroom during a long delay on the tarmac. Sometimes, I am in excrutiating pain waiting during a delay, waiting for them to let me up once the plane is in the air. It's pure torture!

Posted By Cathy Clark on September 14, 2009, 5:58 PM

No one will keep me against my will in an overheated, unsanitary, smelly metal tube for 9 hrs. I submit that this is kidnapping, and no, I am not kidding.

Let's put the Transportatiomn Authority on a stinky plane for nine hours and leave them there to see if that changes their minds. Let the airlines regulate themselves? Thank you, Ronald Reagan for deregulating them in the first place. I hope the two men responsible for this debacle have been removed from their jobs and locked into PortaJohns then towed somewhere in the desert. There is NO acceptable excuse for this. Ladies and gentlemen, we all know where the emergency exit doors are on planes, right?

Posted By Dee on September 14, 2009, 6:06 PM

I laughed out loud when the airlines reportedly said that this kind of law would make customer service worse. How could a reasonable law like this make airline customer service worse than it already is? I am a seasoned traveler about to call it quits because of the lack of service in airports and on airplanes. How about putting into the law that airfares will be refunded to passengers if a tarmac wait excedes 1 hour?

Posted By Jo O on September 14, 2009, 6:21 PM

A system of escalating compensation to passengers should do the job. Currently it is to the airlines' economic benefit to make people wait. If after two hours a mandatory $100 compensation was imposed, increasing by another $200 each hour after that, the equation would change for the airlines. It's unlikely a planeload of 200 people will be stuck on the tarmac for seven hours if the airline is going to have to pay them each $900. And realizing they are making $200 an hour for their trouble, the passengers should be in a much happier mood waiting.

Posted By DaveS on September 14, 2009, 6:57 PM

I am a senior citizen and becoming fearful of flying. I can' miss meals without becoming ill and since airlines no longer have food or drinks for passengers it's a very scary thing. I was on a United flight a year or so ago without heat. I had recently recovered from pneumonia but was denied a blanket--in fact the attendant yelled at us that she had no blankets to give anyone. When I got off the plane all first class passengers had been given blankets and there were plenty of extras. Since when does economy transportation give the airlines the right to risk your health.

Posted By Jay on September 14, 2009, 7:20 PM

I absolutely support a law that would let you leave the plane after 3 hours on the tarmac; but I don't think it should be up to the captain....he has to answer to his employers so he is not impartial. It should be 3 hours and then everybody off. Most people will be so glad to get off and be able to move around they will probably head for the nearest restaurant or bar and spend some more money in the airport. Next time I fly I will make sure I have the airlines corporate office phone number. If that doesn't work, I will call the nearest newspaper, radio station and TV stations and let them know about the situation. See how the airlines like the negative press they would immediately get.

Posted By Wilma P on September 14, 2009, 7:33 PM

Yes, no airline should be allowed to hold people for these lengthy periods. Other arrangements should be made that allow for airlines to discharge passengers when there are lengthy delays.

Posted By Dianne Schellenberg on September 14, 2009, 7:57 PM

one of the questions I have, is why pilots put up with it? Heck, taxi the plane to a maintenance hanger and give the passengers a break. Some of these pilots need to start acting like they are in charge of the aircraft. If the pilots get together on this, they can set the policy. Put it in the next union contract.
why wait for Washington to do something?

Posted By Pete on September 14, 2009, 8:05 PM

It is cruel and unusual punishment to make passengers remain in a plane after 3 hours on a tarmac. I support legislation to limit this activity if the airlines do not voluntarily let passengers disembark.

Posted By Larry on September 14, 2009, 8:18 PM

So it "wouldn't improve customer service" says the Air Transport Association? What about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Not only should there be a 3-hour limit in the law, but there should be a fine of at least $10,000 PER PASSENGER for every infraction.

Posted By George Lindamood on September 14, 2009, 8:23 PM

3 hours is still way too long but it's better than nothing. It's just not that big a deal to deboard and reboard a plane that's already been cleaned and is ready to go.

Posted By Jim Steltenpohl on September 14, 2009, 8:26 PM

I think even a 3 hour wait stranded in an airplane is too long. The airlines will not regulate themselves either. It is bad enough we are asked (required) to be at the airport 2-3 hours before flight time and just sit around. If the plane is not ready to takeoff or has no place to land with a gate, then it shouldn't be loaded. I often feel that passengers are treated like a herd of cattle. I support any legislation forcing disembarkation after 3 hours.

Posted By Bruce W on September 14, 2009, 8:34 PM

I cannot believe that Americans are treated in this manner! Three
hours on a plane without water,
food air,and bathroom facilities?
Complete Barbaric! There is NO-WAy this should be allowed.What is the problem about evacuating
the plane for the nearest building------we have not GONE
ANYWHERE! Security is SECURE=====
I agree that the big executives
should try sitting for a few hours and see how fast the law changes!!!!!!

Posted By Maureen on September 14, 2009, 8:40 PM

Yes! It's not a solution to simply hold passengers hostage. The airlines and airports need to deal with delays, to sort out the problems before passengers are unwittingly led onto the planes. Asking the industry to regulate itself is just ludicrous.

Posted By Karen Palmer on September 14, 2009, 8:57 PM

This whole thing is ridiculous. 3 hours is too much to expect. 2 hours is reasonable. I waited on the tarmac for 1 hour because a gate was not available for us to de-plane. When I consider the fact that I am buying a ticket and then the seller is telling how I can use my purchase, or that I may be unreasonably delayed on the tarmac, or that I have to pay additional fees to change my ticket, is what I have purchased really mine?? It is now time for flyers to take back their rights.

Posted By Jim on September 14, 2009, 9:06 PM

It's inhumane to keep people packed on a parked plane for more than an hour, never mind three, esp. if the bathrooms are out of order and drinks are not be provided (since we can't carry our own on, anymore). Why is this question even being asked? Does anyone think any other business run like this would still be around after a couple of months? The real question is why the airline industry, which seems to have genuine contempt for its passengers, is permitted to behave the way it does without consequences.

Posted By Diana B on September 14, 2009, 10:20 PM

Absolutely. Even 3 hours is too long. The idea that passengers couldn't deplane because of security was about as ridiculous as you can get, but that was the fault of the airport, not the airline. So make it a law and enforce it! Oh, and let's have some high speed rail in this country.

Posted By MBrandes on September 14, 2009, 10:24 PM

Don't just complain here. Email your senators. I just sent an email to my 2 senators asking them to support a bill to limit inhumane tarmac sequestrations.

Posted By MBrandes on September 14, 2009, 10:34 PM

I am very opposed to having to sit on tarmac for 3 hours...too risky, for many reasons. needing meds, for one thing, bathroom problems, food problems...what's the big deal about going back to the gate, & waiting inside?
I had to wait once fo 2 hours, while a storm passed, & it was awful. Sitting so long in one position is VERY unhealthy! (blood clots) & stewardess said no getting up & walking aisles, as it is an active runway!)

Posted By June Kuoppala on September 14, 2009, 10:38 PM

As someone who flies well over 100,000 miles each year, I understand and share the frustration. But think before you act. Do you really want a hard-and-fast law that states after 3 hours on the tarmac the pilot MUST take you back to the terminal or another holding area where you can disembark? What if it was a weather delay or extreme back-up of flights due to a runway closure? And as your flight reaches the 3-hour mark, you're No. 2 for takeoff? Do you REALLY want to have to give up your slot to head back to the terminal? You could have an end result of adding 3 hours to your delay!
I think common sense has to have some role here. It's nonsense for the airline and/or air traffic control to hold passengers on the tarmac for long periods. But it's also potentially ridiculous to have hard-and-fast rules about length of that hold when there can be situations where another few minutes on the tarmac could result in a departure, but a mandatory return to the terminal could result in a further multi-hour delay.

I agree, the U.S. airlines have lots of room for improvement (and it CAN be done, look at some of the European and most of the Asian airlines, which are always my first choice). But try to remember that certain things are beyond their control. It's not always the pilot's or airline's decision whether to remain on the tarmac or return to the gate. The airport authority and even air traffic control have some say in the matter, too. Jim's post is an example of that: the airline had it's plane at the terminal, but because a gate had not cleared, it was wasting money with flight crew on overtime, quite likely facing a delay for that plane to turn around to its next destination, etc. It was a victim of the occupied gate, too. Do you think the airline WANTED to be paying staff to stand by while waiting for another plane to depart its arrival gate? Be reasonable! (and no, I have NO affiliation with any airline, don't even know anyone who works for an airline. I've been stuck with the frustration of sitting on a tarmac waiting for a gate, or in a long queue of planes waiting to take off, too. I just think we all need to be reasonable and try to see all sides of a problem in an effort to then search for a solution.)

Posted By Tammy on September 15, 2009, 3:34 AM

I think the problem of sitting on the tarmac could be solved by a simple law. First hour-FREE, second
hour-$50, Third hour-$100, Fourth hour-$200, Fifth hour-$400, Sixth hour-$800 etc. paid by cash to each passenger. If Arithmetic progression don't work we could kick it up a notch to geometric progression. I sure that when the pockets of the big boys have holes burnt in them they will change
the mode of operation. (Leave on Time Ever Time and
Arrive Ahead of Time) Except for Emergencies of Course.

Posted By EMT on September 15, 2009, 3:34 AM

It's surprising no one has had serious health problems, or even died, due to such extreme measures taken by an airlines. If one is being held against their will, they are a captive and no longer a customer. Perhaps it's going to take someone bringing charges against an airline for "rules" to change. I'm not for more laws, as I believe there are too many (stupid) laws already, but if the airlines won't accommodate their customers, then laws will have to be passed.
I think anything longer than an hour constitutes unreasonableness and provoking safety issues for customers.

Posted By Sandra on September 15, 2009, 8:22 AM

Absolutely, without question. While concern must be given to "all" passengers, there are isolated instances of individuals that may be afflicted with a condition such as IBS. Medication is not an issue; a readily available lavatory is. Not only an embarrasing situation for the individual should they experience an episode, but the resulting obnoxious, unpleasant odor would be distruptive to the entire cabin. Cranky infants would be a luxury.

Posted By Gil on September 15, 2009, 9:13 AM

Do we need another law? I am a strong advocate for real passengers' rights regarding the airlines. I just don't see this law being enforced. If only airlines would use common sense in NOT keeping passengers on the tarmac longer than an hour...yeah, right, like that's going to happen. Anything over an hour, passengers should be let off the plane and transported back to the terminal. But, no, airlines won't do anything that resembles common sense or a simple gesture toward the passengers they need for their businesses to survive.

Posted By Lynn on September 15, 2009, 10:18 AM

People shouldn't be forced to board a plane in the first place if it isn't going to be able to leave in less than an hour.

"Well, if you're familiar with JFK you know that it gets pretty busy this time of day so we'll be waiting a while for our turn," is not something anyone should have to hear the pilot say (especially just after a 10 hour flight from Europe). If a plane isn't going to be able to take off in 15 minutes or less after boarding, they shouldn't start seating passengers.

And if the reason for the delay is that there is something wrong with the plane, why on earth make people sit there waiting while their injured plane is hopefully fixed? Get a new, intact plane and take off! My brother had to sit on a plane for 6 hours because the LANDING GEAR was broken and had to be taken apart. I can't believe they made passengers continue on a plane with a recently broken, extemporaneously repaired, untested landing gear.

Posted By Meg on September 15, 2009, 10:23 AM

I am concerned that "if the pilot deems it safe," is a loophole, because many planes are stuck out on the tarmac, not walking distance to a terminal. There needs to be something about being able to transport back to a terminal, or provision made for a safe area.
I think it is unconscionable of the airlines to refuse passengers a way out of such a burdensome situation. Mental and physical health is at risk. Airline are judged for on-time by their time pulling out not in the sky but from the terminal, and use passengers as a pawn in this. Let a few senators and their families be stranded...oh, that's right, they often fly their own chartered planes.
These situations are infrequent, so is being killed by a DUI or having a surgeon leave a scalpel in your body, however the latter two are recognized as crimes. Airlines must be forced back to caring about their business, which is the passenger on their flight.

Posted By Becky on September 15, 2009, 11:01 AM

Passengers need to have some rights in these types of situations. I would think this is considered kidnapping…to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often with demand for ransom. I would think if everyone being held for hours on the tarmac called 911 and report the person sitting next to them as being kidnapped..Maybe someone would get the point.

Posted By Ben L on September 15, 2009, 3:38 PM

My question is, why are passengers even boarding the plane in the first place? If the airline knows there is more than a hour tarmac delay or problem with the plane that needs to be fixed pre take off, people shouldn't even get on the plane. Personally I feel that waiting one and half hours is too long, let alone three or more!

Posted By Jess on September 15, 2009, 5:40 PM

Definately legislation is needed! 3 hours should be the maximum elapsed time before passengers are allowed to deplane. Included in the law should be a requirement that the airline provide food, snacks, beverages after one hour. I'm not comfortable with the captain being the sole arbitor of whether it is safe to deplane. Perhaps some some of civilian ombudsman could jointly make the decision. Finally, thre needs to be a monetary penalty for infractions with the penlaty money going to the passengers.

Posted By Frank on September 15, 2009, 6:01 PM

Quit blaming the airlines for tarmac delays. The ATC (Air Traffic Control) delays are a result of the government's inadequate computer system attempting to "streamline" too many planes all headed the same way at once, which is itself a direct result of Jimmy Carter's airline deregulation act of 1978 .. i.e. government intervention. The aircraft stranded overnight at a closed airport was airline personnel failure, pure and simple, something warranting internal corporate disciplinary action, not a congressional law. Pass a 3 Hour Tarmac law and most ATC delayed flights will end up returning to gate because of one complaining passenger--there always is one--only to be slotted into the ATC delay program at the beginning again. In this case the crews either time out and the flight cancels, or the flight ends going so late that all downline connections are blown, leaving passengers stranded midway through their journey. Why? Because since the DOT began tracking (and reporting) on-time flight statistics, the airlines care more about ON TIME departures than connecting late passengers. It's all about the government and nothing but the government!

Posted By Sue Barnhart on September 15, 2009, 7:53 PM

One hour is enough. I am a passenger not a prisoner. Flying is so miserable these days that I have changed jobs for one that pays half my normal salary just so I can drive to work instead of fly. I'm glad to see so many Americans finally standing up and saying "no". I was starting to worry about living in a country where people are willing to be treated so poorly and pay for it as well. Keep standing up for what few rights you still have. If you don't, what else will you lose?

Posted By Cindy on September 15, 2009, 10:49 PM

There appears to be a strong consensus that passengers should not be trapped in aircraft for hours without being given the opportunity to de-plane. For someone on a flight to attend a business meeting, a three-hour flight delay could make the entire trip worthless. To then force a passenger to travel to his/her destination after the purpose for the trip has ended is unconscionable. Some routes have no competition, so passengers may not have a choice of carriers no matter how badly they've been treated.

Posted By Lewis Edge on September 15, 2009, 10:56 PM

Yes, definitely, I support legislation not to let
passengers wait on tarmac more than 3 hours.
It gets ungodly hot in those planes _ i once waited
in Tahiti where it was extremely hot anyway and
unbearable inside the plane and they let us finally
out - probably because the staff couldn't stand it
anymore either!!

Posted By Brigitte Powell on September 16, 2009, 12:26 AM

If airline self-regulation were to work, it would have worked already - and self-regulation of tarmac delays is an obvious failure. It is far past time for an effective law. Allowing three hours and a return to the terminal if the pilot considers it safe just puts the pilot in the middle of the conflict. This really calls out for a significant financial incentive - fines starting at $2 after 3 hours delay and then doubling every 15 minutes would work. In order to avoid the potentially large penalties, airlines would hold at the gate or return to the gate early. The current system of reporting departing time from the gate as an on-time departure is part of the problem - late takeoffs should also be formally reported.

Posted By John S on September 16, 2009, 12:46 PM

Yes, there should certainly be a mandatory limit on how long passengers can be held on the tarmac. I find flying stressful enough without the thought of being held captive in a hot aircraft for an indefinite period of time. We as the customer should prevail!!

Posted By Doug on September 16, 2009, 4:13 PM

Air travel used to be a much better experience. More leg rooms, frequent refreshments, and hotel accomodation if you had to be transferred to another plane. But all these cost money hardly affordable by the financilly ailing air transort industry. As a result we have this despicable, humilating situation. The system needs a structural overhaul. If you leave it the companies involved in this situation,it could never be done.
Yes. I'm in favor of the said legislation, but tackle the greater job. If an airline cuts corners to survive, it has no right to exist.

Posted By Nourollah H. Damavandi on September 16, 2009, 4:54 PM

So airlines regulate themselves??? That worked for the banking industry now didn't it...lol
I would even push for two hour delays being the minimum. more than that and you've probably missed your connector and then if you get in late to your destination--probably the next day-- your likely to have missed why you flew in the first place

Posted By blkvette on September 17, 2009, 10:41 AM

absolutely, w/o food, water and bathroom facilities anything more would be torture and I thought the President outlawed torture.

Posted By pat on September 17, 2009, 10:55 AM

I continue to say....if you are on a plane foran extended period of time, flag down a flight attandant and advise them you want to be let off the plane.

USE YOUR CELL PHONE!

When they refuse to let you off the plane call 911 and advise the police you feel you are being held hostage. Then call the local TV station and tell them the same thing.

Posted By KT on September 17, 2009, 4:12 PM

They wouldn't need this law if they changed other airline rules & regulations, i.e. a flight is considered "on time" if it pushes back from the gate on time, regardless of when it takes off, which is why airlines rush to board passengers and then leave them wasting away on the tarmac. If "on time" flights were based on take off, airlines wouldn't bother to fill planes when they know there's a substantial delay and viola, problem solved.

Posted By traveler101 on September 18, 2009, 1:08 PM

Yes, there needs to be at least a policy that is enforcable by not just the airline but, the law enforcement officals.

While traveling last year to Rome we were kept on the tarmac multiple times during different layovers. The worse was one lasting up to almost 2 plus hours.

It was hot they had turned the jet off to conserve fuel! even annoucing it being the reason so there wasn't even recycled air.

They conserved water so we had to suck on ice cubes. They would not serve food not even snacks.

There were crying children and an elderly gentleman who was diabetic who needed food.

Luckily a passenger brought food on-board sharing it with him.

It was especially difficult as we were looking at 14 plus hours on the plane to begin with so it turned into a very long miserable flight.

I am afraid it will take someone to become seriously sick if not the worse case scenairo passing away for them to come to the realization that you can't lock us up in a tin can expecting us to feel OK with it.

Posted By Pam on September 20, 2009, 1:25 PM

The gate area where you board the plane, is a secure area, and is located after security. There is no reason that the airline could not let passengers off into the secure terminal area. However passengers tend to wander around, maybe even try to leave the secure area, this is the problem. How do you keep the passengers contained in this circumstance. I agree, if there is a delay, passengers should not be held hostage on the aircraft. I feel, even three hours is excessive. I feel if it is going to be more than one hour, a passenger should have a choice of action to take.

Posted By Bob on September 21, 2009, 11:40 AM

I was a stewardess in the late 60's/70's. We had mechanicals all the time. We never had passengers stay onboard - they all disembarked, went into the terminal to eat and drink - the crew stayed onboard playing cards, reading, etc. That was boring just being a few people on a big plane. THEN WHEN THEY WERE ALL ALLOWED BACK ONBOARD..... ahem.....after sitting in the bar for several hours.........they were all pissed off. It took the duration of the flight to calm them all down and by touch down, they were all smiling, happy little campers.

Posted By deleon on September 21, 2009, 8:08 PM

IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SET IN A SEAT FOR 9 HRS AND NOT GO TO THE BATHROOM, I'D HATE TO THINK WHAT THE PERSON SETTING NEXT TO ME WOULD DO.LET THEM UNLOAD AND RECALL WHEN IT IS READY TO RELOAD.

Posted By LESLIE KIRK on September 27, 2009, 11:40 AM

Flights should have a "launch" window already earmarked for sometime within 60 minutes BEFORE they have passengers board. The terminals are geared towards occupying and entertaining delayed and stranded travelers so people would complain, but they'd at least get to do it more comfortably.

Once they do board us, there is no excuse for not allowing the plane to depart within the next 30 to 60 minutes. Their radar system can track incoming planes & weather patterns far enough in advance that they shouldn't need to wait until the plane is actually on the runway before they decide the corridor is blocked due to traffic or storms.

If it is going to be longer than 60 minutes, they should definitely let passengers back into the terminal (it's still a secured area since everyone in the terminal has already passed through Security screening).

Posted By Evelyn on September 29, 2009, 5:23 PM