SaturnV
Delta T, the Lufthansa at 350 that preceded AF447 by 20 minutes on UN873 deviated 10 NM to the west. The Iberia following AF447 by 12 minutes was at 370 and deviated by 30 NM to the east. AF459 (an A330-203) following the Iberia by 25 minutes deviated first by 20 NM to the west, and then 70 to 80 NM to the east of the track, and was given permission to climb to 370. Neither the Lufthansa or Iberia deviations would have significantly affected fuel consumption.
AF459 at the time of its deviation would have been unaware that various centers were trying to contact AF447. (DAKAR contacted AF459 at 0411 asking it to try and contact AF447.)
Thanks Saturn V for the data.
Some alarmingly uninformed questions about fuel by other posters. To clarify transport aircraft always carry contingency fuel for deviations. My assertion is that the flight before and the flight after had
prior to departure filed a modified flight plan to deviate around the storm. In doing so they took on extra fuel in addition to the contingency fuel. Any talk about the head office refusing a Capt extra fuel is absurd.
It is remarkable that AF447 showed no signs of significant deviation up to the point of the incident. IMHO this implies they were unaware of the storm system at least until they were in it. Did they get the wrong pre flight weather or simply omit it?
I don't believe any transport pilot would choose to take a center line path through a large storm given advance notice and the ease of a deviation. Would not having known of the storm also tie in with the bewildering fact that the Capt took rest immediately before entering the storm. I would want to look at a transcript of the pre-flight briefing to see if the storm was mentioned. Relatively minor mistakes early on (e.g. pre-flight) can snowball events down the road.