Let's look in detail at 411A's case, and see whether we should be agreeing with him or not:
'Although England is an island, it is NOT an island to which flights are dispatched to with island reserve fuel'
- did anyone mention island reserve? No.
'If ANY flight overflies a diversion airfield KNOWING full well that they will be short on arrival, the Commander needs to be booted out of the respective airline, pronto'.
- what does 'short of fuel' mean? Does it mean landing with less than Final Reserve? Or less than minimum for diversion? Either way, the idea that problems are solved by sacking pilots is utter rubbish. I would hope that anyone in airline management these days understands this clearly. (I fear that some do not).
Current fuel planning regulation is almost designed to ensure there are aircraft flying around with perilously little fuel in the tanks in terminal areas. This is FACT. It is fact, because of commercial pressure put on regulators by operators to allow them to save money.
His rant continues:
'No notice, no pension, no hearing...GONE.
Airlines do NOT pay the Commanders the big bucks for such inaction'.
- No, they pay big bucks to pilots for following policy which may include taking minimum calculated fuel for the sector. Many airlines will quickly take action against individual pilots who carry 'too much' fuel.
Finally, we get some value from his post:
'IF airlines condone such action, they should be BANNED from the respective country...period'.
- However, the international/political considerations mean that this cannot be done without causing enormous upset. It has been done in the past, and I hope will be done again when appropriate.
Most company's fuel planning allows the aircraft to land with less than half an hour's fuel, assuming a minimum fuel operation and a diversion. In a busy TMA, will a diversion be carried out without any delay at all..?