411a: <<Clearly, his experience with a quality North American operator, and his many operations into LHR, speak volumes about the fallacy of uplifting only minimum flight plan fuel>>
How so?
Luckily, my employer recommends minimum fuel to be carried only when appropriate. All they ask is that you have a sound and intelligently thought out reason for carriage of "extra" (eg. holding) fuel - in which case it is against stated policy not to carry it. A "tonne for Mum" is unprofessional without a valid reason, just as flight plan fuel alone is inappropriate when the information indicates you will need more. I do agree, however, that contingency should not be planned on being used. Perhaps the word "commit" is unhelpful - most stacks at LHR give you a runway nearer than the LHR strips, so you are never literally committed. It just means you cannot make a low approach and go around *AND* divert to *planned* diversion airfield - but other plans do exist (if they don't, you *are* a mayday). My company, I am pleased to report, has *never* pressured me to take less fuel than I would be happy with (quite the contrary, in fact, after my final command check the checker all but instructed me to take loads of extra fuel!). Weather modelling and traffic forecasting is more exact than it used to be and allows a more accurate and intelligent approach than before. It just isn't right or clever to blindly take fuel 100% of the time for the 0.1% of the time (or whatever) when reality is far removed from prediction. You must, though, remain aware and put plan B into operation before you compromise safety. Staying safe and staying legal and using your brain is what you are paid for as a professional airman, IMO.
And will you *please* do something about your pathetic, sneering, demeaning attitude - all this "Superior Airways" stuff etc. that you ooze is just a transparent attempt to pick a fight when everyone else seems to manage an intelligent debate. The irony is that it makes *you* look aloof and supercilious.
Flanker: <<The legal/company minimum fuel is just that - the minimum. I'd leave rather than work for a company that really pressurised me to take less fuel than I as Captain felt satisfied with. >> I agree - and so would I. Fortunately, my company doesn't, so I don't have to.
Capt. P: I am very familiar with all the documents you mention. I have copies of most of them at home. The SOC you mention makes several general recommendations - all of which are pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy (some parts are practically quotes). Read especially the paragraphs which differentiate the days when holding is likely and those when it is not: cf. paras 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Note also para. 4.3.5 (which is relevant to the thust of this thread) which finishes "If deciding not to divert, the commander can use Alternate Fuel together with any unused portion of Contingency Fuel to extend the length of time he may be required to hold before commencing his approach at his planned destination.".
But it is not done thoughtlessly, and some comments here have given at least one contributor the impression that some operators are imposing draconian dictats which are resulting in dangerously low levels of fuel. This is just not the case in my experience, and certainly not with my company. Lets keep it calm, reasoned and real shall we, people?