I think the answers are pretty easy. The member of the flight crew that opens the door without an emergency or without a jetway or mobile stairs attached loses his/her job. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Apply for unemployment.

Unless the plane is a model with the rear stairs, I can tell you that I'm not teetering on a 10-foot extension latter on icy ground to make my exit unless the thing is on fire. I doubt half the people on my last flight could have made it if the plane actually was on fire.

The flight crew's hands were tied. If they wanted to feed their families next month, they had to wait for the airport authorities to do something. Supposedly, a truck with mobile stairs or even a service truck with a scissors lift bed would have done the job. The people at the airport apparently were content to blame the power failures and no one wanted to risk their livelihood to do anything proactive. Its sad that we have sunk to this level.

Ok, I thought that I was really failing to communicate here, because you seemed to be still missing the point up until your last two scentences.

So, let's extend and revise my comments further:
"The airline and airport management, the TSA, the feds and everyone in authority need to think out of the box."

HEY!

That wuz MY idea!

(establishing a pee corner)

The more one thinks about this, the easier it is to be desensitized and feel like this 7 hour delay is not such a big deal. However, I'm still confounded how the airline and others involved would take such a big risk. From the airlines perspective, it always comes down to money. I would think the managers and executives would escalate this situation to priority Number 1 in their lives and get those people off the plane ASAP. The potential to get sued and lose lots of money must go up exponentially as the clock keeps ticking. This situation is bizarre on many levels.

Or maybe I'm wrong and the risk is not great, or the airline is well insured for this exact situation (?).

I'm only half joking - I was on a Continental flight some years ago with a 5 hour delay, no bathrooms, and the passenger sitting next to me peed into another passenger's water bottle for relief. There was simply no choice, and for all I know the flight crew emptied other containers for other passengers to use. Since then I have never gotten on a flight without an empty bladder.

Years before that experience I also remember a flight in the days of the USSR from Tashkent to Kiev where the bathroom erupted and was totally unusable let alone approachable on foot, and Soviet citizens - who knew well the odds that the plane might crash, and had come on board stinking drunk - were peeing in vodka and orange drink bottles. The stench was terrible, so peeing passengers was the least of our problems.

Good times...

Ok. Just to play Devil's Advocate: What if those people had gotten off the plane out there on the tarmack? Blizzard. Ice. Power failure back at the airport. People not dressed for the weather or traction. People physically unable to make the walk back. Poor visability for everyone - passengers, crew, the other vehicles between them and the terminal...

Dont cha think there may have been a few issues? Maybe a lawsuit?

I agree that 7 hours is a long time. I would have hated it. It would have been uncomfortable. But was it really an emergency? Any moreso than the other planes the airport crew was dealing with?

Frankly, I think I'd rather get to the terminal in the plane than on foot, even if I had to wait in that thing for 7 hours with my ADHD kiddo.

If a lavatory is inoperative, that aircraft is going to be restricted to flight legs that are relatively short because everyone realizes how uncomfortable it can become when you're not able to go. I haven't looked up the specifics, but the limitation would be outlined in the minimum equipment list (MEL).

MEL is a list where everything on the aircraft that can be broken is listed and what must be done to operate the airplane safely.

On the airplanes I fly, the lavatory is of a recirculating type, where the blue fluid is filtered and re-used, but at some point the waste holding tank would become full. Which is probably a smaller problem on international sized aircraft, but on the smaller 50-100 seaters, for example, the system wasn't designed to be utilized all day without servicing.

Out of curiosity:

Do the airlines have control/ownership over gates and shuttle buses?

Could the even plane manouver to a gate?

C ould another plane have had passengers deplane, move and let another waiting plane in?

Would walking passengers through the underbelly of the airport have been an option? (i.e however the ground crews come and go)

These are things that make me say "hmmm".

Note to self, who was once delayed in Houston for over four hours: If you ever fly again, be prepared for a doubly long delay. Bring extra meds, something to pee in, entertainment, food and water. And dress not to arrive but to survive. Hey! Wait a minute. I already do this however and wherever I travel.

Didn't we have this conversation last winter, about passengers stuck in a train overnight during a snowstorm? Wasn't our rally cry then to be prepared?

Although each carrier may its own regulations regarding MEL, as far as laws are concerned, it seems that we air passengers are entitled to squat (sorry!) when it comes to lavatories on commercial flights. Out of curiosity, I was looking into the topic and the only relevant US law seems to be the Air Carrier Act of 1986, which requires a working lavatory on planes with more than one aisle, that were manufacturered or refurbished after 1992. And there are no requirements that say you need a lavatory per given number of passengers. Apparently, the mighty Airbus A380 could take off on a flight (at least within the US) with 500+ passengers and just one working lavatory and be perfectly within the law.

The law has huge gaps. There are plenty of single aisle planes, like the workhorse Boeing 737. Apparently, they aren't legally required to have any lavatories! I'm not sure if there are any commercial planes that haven't been "refurbished" since 1992, but those would also not be covered under the law. Please tell me we're entitled to more than this under the law!