How would you prevent planes from sitting on Tarmacs for long periods?
Laws which punish airlines, and fine them a sufficient amount of money, would eliminate these delays. For example, the Continental Express jet in Rochester, Minnesota was kept on the tarmac because the airline wanted to get the aircraft to Minneapolis to avoid the expense of canceling the next day's flights. If they had allowed the passengers to deplane into the terminal, they might not have been ready for an immediate takeoff to take advantage of any sudden break in the weather, so the airline decided to keep the passengers and crew trapped on the plane, hoping that if there were a break in the weather the plane could take off and get to Minneapolis where they needed it. If the fine imposed on an airline for keeping people trapped on a plane were more expensive than the cost of canceling the next day's flights, airlines would allow passengers to disembark, and simply cancel the next day's flights to save money. As long as it is cheaper for an airline to keep people trapped on a plane than it is to allow them to exit, they will continue these policies. There is certainly no need for planes to fly in dangerous conditions to avoid keeping passengers trapped. The choice is not between (A) taking off in bad weather and (B) keeping passengers trapped on the plane. Taking off into bad weather is not the only way -- and is certainly not the best way -- to allow people off a plane. The best way to allow people off a plane is simply to allow them off the plane; in other words, to pull up to the gate, open the door, and allow the passengers to leave the plane. It's as simple as that. No-one is suggesting that planes should fly in dangerous conditions.