Nobody is saying you should take less fuel than you are comfortable with. What I am saying is that extra fuel is not for free so a bit of critical thought on fuel is highly professional on a worryfree CAVOK day. Can we agree on that statement?
Likewise I don't believe anyone has suggested for a moment that taking additional fuel is free. What I'm trying to assert however is that it's a complete nonsense to look at it as a fleet-wide accumulated figure, especially in a large fleet where the figures appear to be "huge" to quote your expression, and then have that influence one's fuel order. In fact the revenue is ... errr, even "huger"
and the percentage saving is precisely the same whether the fleet has 1 aircraft or 100, it's just that the figures don't impress as much in the former case. Furthermore that percentage is sweet FA on average sector lengths of 1 hour and change that we're considering here, indeed pence if considered per seat. So to reiterate the point once again, management and
PR departments would like to give the impression that taking additional fuel is a ruinous exercise that will surely bankrupt the company in a week, result in 2 headed babies being born, and armageddon come the next full moon. The figures bandied about tend to support that case ... well I'm not sure about the moon bit. While accumulated figures may fool the public, I would hope that an intelligent pilot would know precisely the situation, and that it amounts to bugger all on short sectors, some of the comments here leave me in grave doubts that some actually fully appreciate that fact.