Porch Monkey, this is genuine debate, not a shot at you personally, but since you asked, here is my response. ( I had to enter 10 charcters as I embedded my answers in purple.
No disrespect here,
Thats OK, none to you either, its an adult debate 
but you're just not getting it.
Well I am, and I am getting it more They carried what they felt they needed.
Yes they didAccording to the info available.
I am sure the info was that legally requiredThe pilots didn't f#ck up, they made the best of a bad situation.
Yep they didnt f#ck up in MIA, please take the time to review my first post in this thread http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post7949352 as I clearly support that case. However, why is that many a VA Captain never left BNE without MEL even on CAVOK days EVER and was not once challenged by it. Why is it same Captain landed in MEL when evryone around him bugged out to SY/CB/BN etc on more than one occassion because he had read the same info and had a gut feeling this might be worse, so for the cost of half an hours fuel all 180 pax arrived (30min late) but with safety to still make CB. The company never asked him how the f#ck he managed that. Apparently it was very lonely in the terminal. Or the same captain at the same airline has done CS-BN when others couldn't wouldn't because he held Alice Springs in the tanks when the east coast was stuffed for alternates. iIt cost s few hunder bucks but it got the job done. The B737 is an awesome machine, and it is hard to get a MLW issue like this, so where necessary it can take a bit more. CAVOK with 23 degrees and dew point of 10 it does not bear thinking about, but at other times it does. On that basis, not carrying MEL when it could have been so easily. Sure they met the rules. But when you see a TAF with VRB<5 and a METAR with 05/04, you have to get a little suspicious of what might be next. I do and I do not fly RPT. In fact I recently had the BOM explain the science behind Prob 30 and Prob 40 FG, not to do with this but it was in Launceston. The met office in HBA is very educational, and I bet 99% of pilots have never heard the explanation, but I could be wrong. So in not just my opinion it would have been prudent to carry more based on what I see in the TAF's that day. And you can forget anything close by as it will be potentially the same. I look forward to the conversation when you attempt to interrogate me at the gate about how much fuel I might or might not carry.
See this is the reaction I was not after, I have no desire to interrogate you or anyone, but if the fuel policy and the attitudes shown here were made public (more than pprune readers) and more incidents occur, you can be sure Ben Sandilands and others will start running a flag up a pole. To be frank about it, I gather by this remark you would object to being breath tested before duty too? We the paying pax expect that you are beyond reproach. Thus we have no need or desire to want to ask, but give us all reason to think or suspect, we are going to sit down the back wondering, will I be one of those pax ****ting themselves when the cabin crew are yelling BRACE BRACE BRACE HEAD DOWN STAY DOWN when the plane is otherwise perfectly serviceable. I have never ever on a QF or VA flight had ANY concernes whatsoever, but with the attitude of a few here, and your response, would you blame me for sitting at the back, TAF on my iPhone and wondering how many tonnes are on here for a VRB<5 05/04 arrival? I never have before but now I guarantee I will be. And any other pax that gets a bit wiser to the fact would react the same way. If I was a known alcoholic, and suspected to fly UTI but never crashed or bent a plane, would you trust me with your family or would you want to breath test me, or would you just say no regardless. Would your fear be rational? Even if irrational it is real. My point is do not give the public a chance to develop an irrational fear based on facts and history.
Contrary to your opinion, the great majority don't give a flying rats arse as long as the ticket is cheap,
Yep, sadly that is trueand they don't die
I doubt that crosses their mind, but it might if they knew they would be in a potential problem like MIA. Unless of course this whole episode is really a non-event.. Most don't even know what kind of a/c they are on! And, just so you know, VA send the 737 to MIA whenever the E Jet is u/s. As such it's a semi regular visitor. That bother you too?
No, they send em to plenty of other CTAF's around Oz
An edit just to address another of your points. The company CANNOT vary any flight legal fuel.
Agreed, sorry if I gave you that idea, I meant their own policy over and above legal, if I wrote that wrong I apologise for the confussionThe Captain can take more than the recommended plan, If he feels it is necessary.
Yep, and that underpins my whole arguement, I think the companies should be encouraging all captains to be more like the one I quoted above. His F/O's often sighed relief when they saw his planning logic. The company never questioned it, it was never excessive, but it never gave rise to stress either. A happier balance is what should be encouraged not a bare bones nothing more. And I accept the company do not insist you do that either, so it is your choice, but they could encourage better decissions so the crew do not get dealt a **** sandwich like these two crews did. Remember I am not persecuting the crews, but I think they could have saved the cockup at the gate, rather than MIA.Perhaps you need to read a little more some of the replies addressing these issues earlier in the thread.
Yes you could be right there, but I waded in at page 31 and seeing gazumped ranting on I came to the defensive position of both crews..... but at the same time, this could all have been avoided if the thought process was a bit different at the gates.
Why is it then that many Captains hold the view there was nothing wrong......no lets say that again, why is it that many Captains hold the view that the fuel choices of these two flights was "sub optimal" and in their entire career never chose that scenario, rather they always had MEL or where ever else depending on the day, and nobody gets roasted for it, and others will happily support the fly on bare minimum legal fuel? Who is right Vs wrong? They are both right. Who is legal or not? they are both legal? Who gets the job done 100% of the time?
Better looking at it than looking for it.
So as a paying pax how do I tell the difference in safety from the two?
The paying public deserve better than what they got that day in MIA, blame whoever you like, but how do they ensure it never happens again? Or more the point when you are paxing home after a trip how do you ensure it never happens to you? And worse still when the option is there to cary excessive amounts more without MLW or other issues. This is not DFW - BNE stuff we are talking about.
By the way, I would be apy to discuss this over a beer with you any day. Even if we still disagree
Remember I am on your side, have your career and future in mind and the ongoing high safety record in Australia to remain that way.