No disrespect mercurydancer, but you would have no idea if the PIC was a "minimalist" or not and there is no reason why it should make you "feel more confident".
1. As far as I see, nobody is talking about taking less than any legal documented fuel policy.
2. As some have already stated, there is fat in PLOGS generated by the flight planning system of many airlines.
3. If additional fuel is required due to weather or any other operational requirements, that is the
PIC's decision and some Airlines may just require the reasons recorded.
4. If it is not needed, then why carry it? That is the all a "minimalist" questions (without speaking for all).
5. There is a significant difference between WANT and NEED, neither jeopardise safety.
6. If 1000 PIC's in airline A took what they wanted ("a bit for mum" or "thinking time"), and 1000 PIC's in Airline B took what they needed, neither has any safety implications but consider the economic difference between the two.
7. If the unexpected happens on an apparent "good" operational day, the "minimalist" may have to make an earlier decision. However, in the event of a runway closure, the "bit for mum" and "thinking time" may end up next to "minimalist" at the No.1 alternate a while later anyway (whilst "minimalist has refulled ready to return to original destination).
8. The term "minimalist" should be banned.
9. If your airline has no concern over fuel prices then where do we all apply?
