[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Asking airlines to develop a procedure for handling such delays is not good enough, as this does not have the power of the law. An administrative failure by an airline could result in DOT fines, but this does little to resolve the problems for the hostages. It needs to be against the law for an airline to jeopardise the health and safety of their passengers by holding them hostage for a period longer than three hours. This would then provide both criminal and individual civil remedy for the passengers

Administrative sanctions would, at least, be a start. Granted, not much of a start. To date, the pattern of the DOT, with respect to fines, has been to impose a large fine, initially. Then, shortly thereafter, the fine is either reduced, or totally wiped-out if the airline promises to be a "good boy," and not do it again. The tone of the Transportation Secretary, in this case, seems to recognize the severe impact upon customers of extended tarmac delays. We can only hope that said tone may signal a less lenient attitude toward imposing fines, at least when it concerns tarmac delays.

I think I can safely say legislation remains the ultimate goal for passenger rights advocates. Hopefully the courts would interpret such legislation as giving standing to one, or a class, of customers in a civil action arising from a tarmac incident.

Jim you must remember that, in America, legislation, on the Federal level, is easier said than done. For one thing, I'm not sure the UK allows the level of campaign donations, and other perks, to MPs, as the US allows to members of Congress. In the case of passenger rights, a big problem is the ability of major airlines, and the Air Transport Association, to, in effect, "buy" a "no" vote on legislation these groups see as contrary to their interests.