Those making comments along the lines of "I'll carry whatever fuel I feel comfortable with and damn the accountants" work for a very different organisation to the one I do (and would like to continue working for). . .. .The fact is, at least in my airline, that this is simply not possible on many occasions, since minor annoyances like payload and max takeoff / max landing weight all too frequently intrude. (It’s almost the norm to land at LHR at MLW after carrying min CFP fuel.) If the weather's marginal, they'll often as not give me the extra fuel I ask for, but (surprisingly enough for people who are in this business to make a buck), they're not at all enthusiastic about taking off payload or kicking off passengers just because the captain wants to carry another couple of tonnes of fuel 'for mum and the kids'. . .. .Having said that, I'm of a similar mind to MTOW and his comments earlier in the thread. I'll carry company-recommended minimum fuel into LHR if that's what they want me to do, but when the 'fuel remaining' gauge reaches 'n' KGs - my min diversion fuel - (a figure I spend some time calculating well before TOPD), I'm out of there and off to my alternate. (And usually, I can bug out before reaching that figure because the truly excellent ATC that LHR enjoys keeps us all in the loop with EATs and trends.) . .. .If the weather and EAT are such that they will allow me to nominate the second runway as my alternate, I'm quite content to hang in the hold until I reach a fuel remaining figure that will allow me to LAND with my 30 minutes final reserve untouched - and I'll give the time I expect to reach that figure to ATC well ahead of that time.. .. .And if for some reason ATC are unable to allow me to start the approach when I get to that magic figure, it's time to declare an emergency, because there's no other way to describe the situation you're in. However, I'll be having a minor bleat 5 or so minutes beforehand to make sure the controller's completely aware of my situation so hopefully it never gets to that.. .. .As for the respondent who says his company allows the second runway to be nominated down to Cat II conditions, all I can say is that the pilots in that airline quite obviously have hairier chests than I've got - or ever hope to have!!! My company requires 1000' ceiling, 5000M visibility and less than 80% of max crosswind to nominate a second runway and I sincerely hope it stays at those limits. I don’t know how anyone can say that he believes a landing is 'assured' in Cat II conditions, especially if that landing is your last chance before all the noise stops.. .. .(Edited by spelling police.). . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: Wiley ]</small>