Guys (and girls to be PC)
I think we ought to agree to disagree on the use of the word 'commercial' by CHIRP.
At the end of the day we are all trying to achive the same thing, a SAFE operation that is COMMERCIALLY viable.
The CAA or whoever make the rules and CHIRP gives us a sounding board where we can raise concerns without sticking our heads up above the parapit... supposedly.
What isn't clear is what the CAA do with regards to the reports and whether they folow them up with the operator... from reading them regularly I tend to think that sometimes this doesn't happen.
I must admit what worries me is that a UK AOC holder can put in place procedures that enable it to intimadate crews into taking flight plan fuel when their judgement may suggest more is required. (Page 9 Sector Fuel - Relearning an old lesson) I think CHIRP should name and shame such operators, if only to highlight the problem.
I'm lucky in that we are simply encouraged to think about what extra we take (which to my mind is part of our job as professional pilots) but I have never heard of anyone being taken to task over their decisions, or even have them ever queried.