Yes, we do things differently here in the USA. Dispatchers play an important part. As the captain, we check the fuel for our flight...we don't make up the flight plans anymore, we are too busy with a load of other crap. But we do check it and if we want more fuel we ask for additional fuel. IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY NO, we could :
1. be a wimp and do what THEY tell us to do.
2. Say, get me the fuel or we will be delayed, while you try to find one of the above.
NOw there is pressure to use "min fuel". There has always been a payload tradeoff for fuel and a wise captain knows what to do.
Why has it come to the attention of the media now? Who cares why?
It is true. But it has also been done in the past. I recall the following conversation going into KSFO: Bay approach, American XXX, were min fuel for SFO.
Roger, say diversion airport?
You don't understand, were min fuel to SFO...we just don't want or can't tolerate any unneccessary delays.
Roger, You will be over the outer marker in SFO in 30 minutes, or you can be over the outer marker to OAKLAND airport in 5 minutes...its your choice. ARE YOU DECLARING A LOW FUEL EMERGENCY (this is different than min fuel)?
Negative, request vectors to Oakland.
Now, after they diverted to Oakland, refueled, got re released it took another 30 minutes to fly to SFO (straight line distance is less than 11 nautical miles).
Who was smart for taking "min fuel " that day?
Quite simply, every major airport in the USA has delays, even with the nicest weather and a pilot who doesn't take fuel to cover those delays is a chump.
Diverting, because you are trying to please your company dispatcher or bean counter is nuts.
rotsa ruck...even in perfect wx, hit the marker with all legal requirements, but if you aren't prepared to hold for an hour, you will end up using more fuel with a divert and you will piss off the passengers (what you europeans call SLF and what we call SIR)