Originally Posted by
AN2 Driver
That one was not caused by the airline in question but by ATC. And it was funny that the "real" story of the A340 landing really short did not make news while the 737's which didn't were discussed widely.
Because all the media wanted to 'point fingers' at the 737 airline. And they failed because there was no reason to 'point fingers'. The media don't have a clue who the A340 airline is and wouldn't understand the situation that it ended up in. Sad, but simple.
However, that does highlight yet another reason for considering extra fuel: "ATC"! A very valid point in some parts of the world, as this case has shown. But seeing that problem in advance and calling Mayday, as those 737s did, puts you in a better position for a safe landing.
krismiler's last Post highlights yet another aspect of the "ATC reason" for considering more fuel. I knew an airline that brought in a 'mandate' from Ops to carry PLOG minimum fuel. On a day soon after with no weather problems one of the Captains did just that on a Friday afternoon. The queue at the hold for departure was long enough (as he knew it would be on a Friday afternoon!) that he went way over his taxi fuel, so they had to return for fuel (not all that easy when in that queue, so a long delay to get to the front of the queue, then taxi up the runway to taxi back!!). Point safely (but expensively) proven and that 'mandate' disappeared!! People in offices do not always know what is best.