The issue is getting cloudy here.
Antigua complied with CAA approved company SOPs. Had he diverted instead of using his diversion fuel in the hold then he would have ended up at his diversion field LGW with minimum reserve anyway ie 30mins at 1500' in BAs case.
The policy works well most of the time however should the weather forecast be bad we take lots of extra and are not questioned about that decision.
My point would be that due to commercial pressure we are spaced at 2.5 miles where possible, often get landing clearance at very low level or after landing have to stand on the brakes and vacate soonest because the guy behind is already over the fence!
Couple this situation where there is undoubted (legal) commercial pressure via company SOPs to carry minimum fuel and it all borders on the unacceptable. Where else in the world do ATC have 2.5 mile approach separation to accommodate the amount of traffic?
LHRs holding delays are the stuff of legend. The real dilemma is the complete unpredictability of the length of those delays. It is about time the regulatory authorities said enough is enough and insist a) on more realistic approach spacing and b) that companies cannot promulgate a fuel policy that is acceptable in many situations but inappropriate for LHR.
I believe the situation at present is a disater waiting to happen.
before anybody gets the wrong idea BA managers do not stand at the door with a big stick should a pilot take extra fuel. I and my colleagues have no problem taking extra if we want it but the culture is to take minimum where possible but I say that minimum has become too little.