My point was and is that there must have been a gross miscalculation of the EFOA or else it would not have ended up in a fuel emergency.
PLEASE, read the thing as it was reported, a long time ago in the thread. One of the people DIRECTLY involved said
Upon crossing the pond the a/c was told by atc to descend and in doing so the fuel burn increased.
Or, in other words,
if they'd been able to stay at the level they were already at this discussion would not be happening.
If they'd remained at the level they were at, I would be so bold as to suggest that the fuel on board would have been sufficient to reach the original planned destination. I don't know the exact fuel burn of the 400, but the airtime from MCR to LHR in the overall scale of the flight is not that much further.
As a direct result of changes to what had already been changed and replanned, they had to go for a plan C, rather than plan B, and it still happened without any injury or damage.
There's been plenty of threads here in the past about arrivals (especially) at LHR with less fuel remaining than was on this aircraft, but I don't see those crews being given the sort of aggravation that's happening here.
If I had been SLF on that flight, I would be sufficiently confident of the crew's overall control and awareness of the situation that they knew what they were doing. When it comes down to it, they are in the thing too, literally and metaphorically at the sharp end, so if it all goes wrong, they are likely to be the first to know about it in every way, which tends to concentrate the thinking wonderfully.
As has been suggested. maybe some breathing space is called for, so that the real and complete facts can be reported. Then, and only then, there might be a case to be made for informed discussion and debate, which might, or might not lead to changes in procedures. Anything else is verging on unfair on the people that did the job according to the book.