They wound up short of fuel and landed short. Elegant proof of a violation of B2
Incorrect. They had less fuel than necessary to reach LHR but that came as no surprise to anyone and was known about 10 hours prior when the engine failed, further reinforced about 6 hours prior when the lower oceanic level was assigned. Continurine to an en-route alternate is not a problem. It was only when the aircraft approached MAN and the crew became uncertain of the performance of the fuel system that the Mayday was declared as a precaution. As it happened the aircraft landed in MAN with full reserves, all of which was usable. Aircraft land at LHR with little more than full reserve fuel every day and nobody bats an eyelid.
the outcome of this could be that no state departement travel will be permitted on BA
Thanks to the Fly America policy I doubt there's very much State Dept business coming to BA anyway. Hardly a big loss.
Also, have you read ANY of the reports of passenger reactions?
Yes. No panic on board except for those who smell compensation.
Even if there wasn't a single US certificated airline in the world (IOW no competition), the FAA would be FORCED to act.
Fine. Then rewrite the regualtions to state clearly and unambiguously that any foreign registered operator in US airspace must land ASAP at the nearest airfield in the event of a single engine failure. Don't shilly-shally and try to apply domestic regs to international operators retrospectively.
Assuming they were doing some sort of rerelease flight plan, they should have gotten over release point and made their decision at that point. But again, that doesn't seam to have happened here.
I assume by rerelease you mean what we describe as replanning, filing to an enroute destination then continuing when it as apparent fuel is sufficient? Well the aircraft passed Keflavik and Glasgow en-route, how do you know they weren't replanning on that basis? As previously mentioned, the quesionable fuel system problem only emerged later in the flight.
On SOOOOO many levels this was a foolish decision, that appears to have been carried out for the very LEAST important reason (Economic)
In your opinion. The crew involved, BA and the CAA disagree. The decision was technically correct in regard to UK regulations in every respect. As for the LEAST important reason, well I would suggest that after safety, economics is the most important reason for an airline to make any decision. We're a business.