Held hostage for 10 hours on the tarmac, passengers aren't dealing with terrorists but with the airline industry. The main issue is that they are being held for hours without adequate food, water, air ciruclation, and sanitary toilet facilities.
Passengers who are digruntled enough have sought out regulations that would require a plane to return to the gate if it remains on the tarmac for up to 3 hours. The airline industry says that the problem with that is that it interferes with the efficiency of the air-traffic system, because a plane loses its place in line if it returns to the tarmac. Returning to the tarmac also causes crews to run up against limits on their work hours. They also say that, of the 15,000 daily flights, only 330 waited more than 5 hours to leave the tarmac for the skies. So they're not sure why there is such an uproar.
Wait a minute. They are worried about having to return to the tarmac if there is a wait for up to 3 hours, yet only 2 to 3 percent of airplanes acutally wait for over 3 hours. What is the big deal then? If that is the case, the requirement to return to the tarmac wouldn't interfere too much, would it?
I understand that there would be an even longer wait for those airplanes to take off, but at least the passengers could have access to bathrooms, water, and quality air circulation. I think the solution of returning to the tarmac is far better than having food taken to them, or having the restrooms restored to more amicable conditions. Returning to the tarmac allows these passengers the right to cleaner air and the ability to stretch their legs out.
If nothing else, there is going to be a search for the airline industry to have a legal obligation toward their passengers, where they must at least write a tarmac waiting time limit into their "contract of carriage". Passengers do have a right to know, before hand, how long they would be expected to wait on a tarmac if they have to wait at all.