You see it happened again. Last December, Airlines kept passengers on board but on the tarmac for hours. You argued that a Law would be unnecessary because airlines would be able to regulate themselves.

Sorry, but we are now in March and I happened again! Airlines were unable to regulate themselves. Facts don't lie. 14 hours for Royal Air Maroc, 9 hours for Cathay Pacific etc.... WE NEED A LAW. THIS HAS TO STOP.

First off, I'd like to say that as a law geek/student, I find the idea of calling a judge to get an injunction to be totally bad-ass, in a good way :-)

Here's another fun little idea a passenger who wouldn't mind spending a few nights in jail might want to try:

New York state defines unlawful imprisonment as "when [the actor] restrains another person". Restraint is defined as "to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement." In New York kidnapping can be a felony if violence is used (1st Degree) or a Misdemeanor if it isn't (2nd Degree). NYPL §135.00-§135.15 (West 2007).

New York Law also allows any person to arrest another person for a felony if the person has committed a felony, or any other offense if the person arresting witnessed the arrestee committing the offense. NYCPL §140.30 (West 2007).

So basically, holding you in a plane against your will is an offense, and you as a citizen (or a person for that matter) can arrest anyone (i.e. the flight crew) you witness committing that offense. You might be charged with interfering with a flight crew, but your actions where legally justified, so you should get off. The flight crew might be able to get off by saying there was no reasonable way to get you off the plane, except the whole stair-truck thing kind of kills that.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I may be full of crap, if you get arrested, it's your own damn fault and don't come crying to me.

Patrick asks if legislation will fix the problem. . . well, the Airlines have certainly not fixed the problem over the years so why not try something different?

As a passenger I am not concerned with push backs, time slots and the like. That is the airline's problem. Mr. Smith makes up all kinds of complications but it is really quite simple. If weather does not permit a safe take off then don't leave the gate until you can take off. If you get out of the gate and it looks like you cannot safely take off go back to the gate. . .double park and use portable stairs and a bus if necessary (as happened to me at Heathrow when we landed and a gate was not ready. . . we went down a set of portable stairs and were then taken by Bus to Terminal 3). The passenger has the responsibility to be available for re-boarding, not the carrier. If they miss the re-board, tough.

If the weather was so bad that it would be dangerous to have people use this portable stair method then I suggest the plane should never have landed in the first place or been pushed back.

What about people with medical conditions such asAir diabetes who must eat on severe schedules and the aircraft runs out of food (as happened) or does not have food due to a short run. My wife sat on the runway at O'Hare for three hours in order to make a three hour flight to Las Vegas. It was only three hours because the captain got fed up and told the tower to either give him a southern route to avoid the storms around Chicago or he was going back to the gate his take off position notwithstanding. He had been requesting this routing for well over an hour. He got the routing and took off a few minutes later.

Passenger safety and comfort come first. I am well aware of the idiots who get angry if a plane does not take off on time despite unsafe flying conditions and then raise Cain with the carrier. I will gladly take a lengthy delay but damn if I will sit in a bull pen or taxi way for the delay trapped on the aircraft.

I hate Government regulation but since the airlines keep holding hostages what choice do we have?

"Pilots and flight attendants, remember, are subject to federally enforced flight and duty time limits"

Since when? Must be nice. Here in Canada, Flight Attendants duty time limitations are not enforced by any Gov't level.

I was probably one of the few that travelled JetBlue that week in and out of JFK and wasn't delayed by more than half an hour. I got a email apology from the CEO, which is more than I ever got from any other airline for a litany of muck ups.

I wouldn't be able to take sitting on a plane going nowhere for 10 hours either, and I'm an ex-Flight Attendant (or Stewardess...take your pick)

One of the few things I don't miss about working in the industry is that the front line people are not given the correct information or more often than not, intentionally given misinformation to pass on to passengers. "Don't tell them we're stopping in Gander for fuel...and act surprised when we make the announcement."

It always struck me odd that phrases like "professionalism" and "ability to adapt effortlessly to rapidly changing situations" are pounded into the brains of front line people - but seem to be ignored by everyone in Management and those responsible for making decisions.

The airlines would fight tooth and nail against any re-regulation and or legislation. The Canadian carriers (mainly Air Canada) were lobbying for a reduction in the crew/passenger ratio. Why? $$$. Bad timing - this coming on the heels of the Air France crash helped put the kaibosh on that idea.

The jetBlue situation reminds me of a case Nationair (long gone) had back in 1990 or so for a flight scheduled from FLL to YUL. In Fort Lauderdale, passengers were kept on board for many hours because of a mechanical problem. Passengers were pissed and not too confident in the airworthiness of the airplane after seeing a mechanic hammering away at one of the engines and wanted off. The Captain wouldn't let them..."we could be told to leave any time!" As there'd been no rest, food or sleep for the cabin crew all day, 10 of the 13 of them refused to work, citing the fact that they'd be going over their 18 hour duty day (in their contract) and the newly introduced Right to refuse unsafe work...feeling that their ability to react to an emergency would be impaired by fatigue. When the Captain heard this he ordered the doors closed in an attempt to keep everyone hostage - crew included. When he finally announced that the flight was cancelled because some of the FAs were refusing to work - the cabin broke out into applause.

The airline fired 10 of them. The company went under before the case got heard in court.

So you see, problems like the ones experienced by jetBlue passengers can also take place at the gate.