ATMWorldleader - you beat me to it - my thoughts entirely
Firstly let's all agree on this thread as to the priority here. Is it safety? Or is it getting as many aircraft on the ground in as short a time as possible?
Do not kid yourselves it is the former. We are all allowing the safety margins to be steadily eroded in the interests of the commercial imperative to maximise revenue and minimise costs.
When flying for recreation I would never plan my fuel so tightly that I could not get to my alternate and still have plenty of fuel for several go-arounds. I would also not want to be so close to the a/c ahead of me that the other pilot could feel me breathing down his neck on final. Joe Public on the flight in question would surely have been horrified if they had known the situation that was developing around them, and that if they did not get down first time there might not be sufficient fuel for the next one.
Surely Antigua was doing the right thing asking for a little more spacing? And the Directors at LHR believe they are doing the right thing by following the airlines and HALs instructions to space at no more than 2.5 nm to keep up the landing rate.
But surely we can all see what is really going on? The bean-counters are prevailing and the experts - the pilots and controllers - are losing the argument.
I will stick my neck out here and nail my colours to the mast. It is time to reverse the trend - increase a/c spacing to a minimum of 4 miles and carry at least 30 mins contingency fuel above and beyond the diversion reserve. Let safety come first for once and s*d the cost. We will all have to pay a little more for the privilege of flying - but at least we will have a safe operation at LHR.