Bellerophon
Sorry, I don't accept your premise at all.
My point was directed at those who routinely burn divert fuel in the hold. I never said that to do so was always incorrect- there will always be exceptions. The reality is, however, that on 90% of the days that this happens, the divert wx/operational ability is the same as, or better than, the destination. What I am challenging is the idea that it is routinely acceptable to do so, and more importantly the thinking and planning that results in pilots routinely having to do so.
Why? because you leave yourself with NO options. Surely this is the obvious, logical argument you seek.
The point about FRF is that it is the next casualty in the sort of thinking I am describing. By the way, diversion fuel is part of your reserves.
You say "If you are not happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means divert, but don’t do it without thinking about it.
I say If you are happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means remain, but don’t do it without thinking about it. But if you do, recognise that you have just cut your options in half, and are now completely committed to landing - which is the "dodgy airmanship" I was referring to.
You (and others) seem to have bought into a company line that running around on minimums (ie saving money) is just fine. You certainly make no mention of the possibility of a tech stop in your post, or an en-route divert when it becomes clear that your arrival at LHR will be with only divert fuel remaining (soon to be can-no-longer divert fuel). I don't accept that sort of narrow "must get there" thinking.
We all know that in many companies, a divert due fuel is going to be followed by tea and biscuits with your manager. The trend therefore seems to be to arrive at your destination, legs clenched, and hope like hell that it all works out. Anything to avoid a warm beverage and snack. I'm not sure which is worse, the intimidation itself or the way pilots so easily capitulate to it.
Hopefully one day you will realise that you owe it to your pax to get them to their destination in the greatest possible safety, with no corners cut and no unnecessary risks taken. Arriving at destination with so little fuel that you are forced to burn your divert reserve, does not satisfy that aim.
Another point for those who argue that keeping divert fuel when holding for a two-runway airfield is irrelevant: have you considered that many of the things that can close a runway unexpectedly, can close both? For example: an aircraft running off a runway could conceivably close both, as could a terrorist alert, closing the tower due fire or similar, etc etc etc.
bral
No, you can't plan for every outcome- but for the reasons already stated, one course of action gives you more possible outcomes than the other.