The crew which only uplifted 283kg of extra stated they did not get a new TAF in STN.
Legally they wouldn't need to since the earlier TAF they had covered their ETA +/- one hour. Whilst I agree it might have been better to have the latest TAF would this have made any material difference?
It is obvious that flight crew who are employed by the hour and without protection are pressured into carrying less and lesser fuel and diverting later and later.
Do you know that the subject crew(s) were contract crew paid by the hour? A large proportion of their pilots are on a Ryanair contract. I don't think the issue of whether or not they are contract crew is that relevant.
A point I would like to mention is the expediency of not carrying excess fuel for commercial flexibility let alone safety.
On many flights it is totally appropriate to take flight plan fuel, ie no weather problems, anticipated ATC delays etc.
On some flights it is foolish in the extreme
not to take some extra fuel. Given the TAFs mentioned I would like to think that I would think in terms of taking at least an extra hour's holding bearing in mind TEMPO means a change not exceeding one hour.
If you get there and TS prevents an approach you then have the endurance to hang around for up to an hour - by that time said TS has cleared the field and you make an approach and land.
Can anyone tell me that it is, from a holistic point of view, more economical to be on the ground at the alternate because you took flight plan fuel?
Surely the main objective is to get the passengers safely to their desired destination?