If the fuel on board complies with the regulation that has been formulated by the top professionals in the industry and has been in place for a long time, how can a journalist, who knows next to nothing about aviation deem it to be unsafe. Isn't this just another piece of sensationalism about nothing. If there is an argument for increasing the minimum fuel carried under the regulations, then make the case, and get the reg changed. Otherwise this, and the RY thred, are pointless discussions.
So what if there are, thunderstorms, fog, high cross winds, heavy rain, snow, traffic delays, there is always a provision to take extra in these circumstances. If you can't carry a full load in these circumstances then that's tough for the company. If there is a delay to the arrival hold until you reach the minimum fuel to divert then go somewhere else. If the pilot does his/her planning right, both before take off and en-route, then there is no reduction to safety.
Last edited by Best foot forward; 31st Dec 2012 at 09:00.