Congratulations! After a 3-hour hold on the taxiway, you may now return to the gate and leave the airplane. Questions you possibly should have considered before you got all enthused: How likely is it that a gate will be open and empty for your airplane to tie up? What is the likelihood that your crew's duty time will run out and the flight will be just plain cancelled? With planes as full as they are nowadays, what is the likelihood that you will be able to snag a seat on the next flight out that day? How about the next day? The day after that? Enjoy your 'victory,' travelers!

Posted By RNB on December 21, 2009, 12:58 PM

I get it... You think we may regret forcing the 3-hour rule on the airlines. I am one of those that WAS stuck on a plane for 6-1/2 hours! It wasn't pretty. We wound up going back to the terminal anyway! The crew had run out of hours. I think the likelyhood of completing a flight after more than 3 hours on a tarmac are pretty remote. And if I wind up having to rebook, so be it. Life will go on....

Posted By Mark in Boston on December 21, 2009, 1:37 PM

This is a great day for passenger rights! Thinking that the plane might have taken off if only we had waited a few more minutes is just wishful thinking. The air ports and air traffic control are privy to the most current weather information and hub traffic throughout the nation and worldwide for that matter. If they cannot forecast when the plane might be able to actually take off, then the passenger welfare should take priority. The DOT got it right on this one.

Posted By Tom B. on December 21, 2009, 1:39 PM

What part of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to impose such a rule?

Posted By Paul Eccles on December 21, 2009, 3:45 PM

I believe that would be the Interstate Commerce clause under Article 1, Section 8. While we are on that topic, what part of the Constitution allows a corporation to retain a U.S. Citizen against his or her wishes? What part of the Constitution allows a corporation to deny a U.S. Citizen food, water, medical attention, and sanitary services while aboard an airplane?

Posted By Tom B. on December 22, 2009, 3:04 PM

This is not the panacea to all extended flight delays, no single ruling ever would be. There WILL be some cancellations, there WILL be some extended delays to get a new flight crew, and that WILL cause some other disruption and delays at the terminal. However, that is already going on or you wouldn't be sitting on the tarmac for 3+ hours. The victory is in making the airlines realize that we are HUMAN BEINGS, and need to be treated as such. We are not cattle being hauled off to slaughter, although the airlines have adopted that philosophy, which is evidenced by the way we are treated and that the flying public is becoming immune and indifferent to. This ruling is way past due in coming.

Posted By airborne steer on December 24, 2009, 11:19 AM

First, planes should not be allowed to leave the gate until it is clear they are approved to take off. When in doubt, keep them at the gate.
Second, if planes do return to the gate, retain the original takeoff order so those waiting the longest, leave first.
Third, airline/union rules need to accommodate for the time pilots are NOT in the cockpit but may be in a terminal lounge so there is more flexibility in bad weather/delay situations.

Posted By Tom on December 24, 2009, 11:39 AM

First of all this ruling will ost likely result in more cancelled flights as in some cases, especially if the flight is not full, the airline will simply cancel the flight if there is a greater than 50 per cent chance that there will be more than a 3 hour delay. They are doing it now, this just gives them another reason to do so. The primary "victory" is a "right" now afforded passengers that should serve as a wake-up call that under our new Presidential administration President Barack Obama is more concerned about people than corporations as under the Bush Administration as stated by Budget Travel has been trying to get this done since 2007. Since only 200,000 out of 1.6 billion passengers may be affected, by itself it is not that impactive to the airlines. However, we should rejoice that we finally have a Presidential Administration looking out for the people and that ALL corporations had better take NOTICE!

Posted By Stevorino on December 24, 2009, 2:35 PM

It's way past time that the airlines were held accountable for delays. Granted, it's not always their fault, but in many cases it IS. I was recently booked on a flight scheduled to depart at 4:30 pm. The time kept getting pushed farther and farther back. We finally took off about 7:15, with no apologies, no explanation for the delay, and a surly crew who finally came around to hand out small bottles of water. We weren't even offered the option to BUY a bag of peanuts, let alone given any free snacks. We should have been given some explanation for the delay, and after a wait exceeding two hours, there should have been an option to re-book with another airline, if possible. Instead we sat and waited...and waited.

Posted By mensablonde1 on December 24, 2009, 4:28 PM

Please, people, do you think the ever evil airlines WANT to keep you on these planes. I'm a flight attendant and I'd much rather be in the air getting paid than holding someone for hours. It isn't the airlines! It's the government. On time performance, lines to take off, dispatchers, towers, not enough gate space, landing slots, take off positions. Do you think they want to go back to the gate and then start all over? How about coming up with a better system to get us of the ground! Where are you going to go if you go back to the gate? I know some of these delays are absolutely absurd, but 2 or 3 hours isn't unheard of. Get out of line....lose your space and go to the back of the line when you decide it is ok to go again. Oh, wait...there isn't a gate to load you all up again to get in line. Woops, should have waited in line. The airlines will just cancel rather than get stuck with a fine of $27,000 per passenger. Try to see our point of view. I'd feed ya all steak if i could, but we have no room. The holding tanks are only so big on a lav so they fill up fast. we can only have so much water on board because it takes up space and adds weight. Please try to be more compassionate and see we don't want to be there either. I do hope they just cancel flights rather than trying to jockey around getting a gate, keeping people at the airport waiting for a flight that may never go and getting in the way of your "rights". Flying isn't fun anymore (but waiting this long is terrible) so realize there are going to be some inconveniences and 2-3 hours may be one of them and a cancelled flight will be another. I do sympathize with those of you who are stuck on a plane for such an unreasonable amount of time, but for those of you that think your rights are being interferred with when you wait for a couple of hours, I think you need to toughen up. Maybe this law will help and I hope so, but for those of us on "this" side, really see it as a detriment to all of us.

Posted By Sue B. on December 24, 2009, 10:01 PM

Three hours is three times way to long. If the plane isn't going to get airborne, or if there is a problem that is going to delay the flight past an hour--put the friggin crew in the passenger seats!

Posted By Dave on December 25, 2009, 3:32 AM

I guess very few people posting have been on International flights to Asia. Any time there is a problem with available gates for the airplane to return, they wheel up stairs to the airplane on the tarmac and the passengers deplane no matter what the weather. NO BIG DEAL. Airports in the USA better buy movable stairs and buses to take people off the planes.

Posted By Ernie on December 25, 2009, 4:09 PM

how can you go back to the gate when that gate is scheduled by another flight to be in use ?

and if you go back to the gate how long are you supposed to sit before taking off again ?

once you take off and arrive at your destination is there supposed to be a gate available for your plane to land at ?
all gates are used by time slot for take off and landing , you dont just arrive at an airport and pull up to the gate like you do parking at the mall

will there be gates left empty just for aircraft that go back to the gate ?

it wont work - sorry

Posted By m on December 27, 2009, 1:54 PM

People need to realize that many passengers have legitimate reasons why they cannot sit in an airplane for hours on the tarmac. For those with severe back problems (not cry babies, real problems) just sitting in an airline seat for the flight time is a huge challenge. A person with diabetes or hypoglycemia that doesn't have access to food? Bladder or digestive problems with no working bathroom? Sitting in a plane for hours under these conditions is torture, not a mere inconvenience. I applaud the 3 hour rule. It may result in cancelled flights but it is humane.

Posted By Lisa G. on December 27, 2009, 11:36 PM

I agree -- it may be true that single business travelers aren't inconvenienced by excessive delays, but for families that time on the runway can be outrageously uncomfortable. We spent just shy of three hours on the runway in Denver due to mistakes on the part of the airline (overselling the flight), gate agents (boarding too many passengers and exceeding safe weight limit for the plane) and weather. We were on a commuter plane with no running water in the lavatory (just a pile of alcohol wipes) and very little cabin service. The cabin temperature hovered at 74 degrees for the entire three hours (we had our uncomfortable, bored and miserable infant daughter stripped down to her onesie). A passenger became sick from the heat. I would have paid $1,000 cash to anyone who would have let us off that plane and into the terminal, even if it meant a cancellation.

Posted By Susan on January 4, 2010, 2:35 PM