Lots of companies use fuel 'league' tables so crew members can see where they rank amongst their peers regarding fuel.
Southcoast,
There is no justifiable reason to run a "fuel league" and promote safety. It is by its very nature a competitive set. It's an intrinsically unsafe practice. A company has every right to monitor its fuel usage. A company has every right to train and practice fuel conservation procedures such as single engine taxi. However, using a fuel league identifies, ranks and scores individuals. It introduces subtle competition in an environment that is inappropriate. Depending on the management culture, it leaves individual pilots open to overt or covert discipline or reward.
the pilot group are attempting to play the 'unsafe' card in order that the pressure the public may exert on the airline by not flying with them may make the management change their style and T&Cs is wrong, that is an in-house issue and should be done internally.
I disagree with your assertion that 'minimums are legal, and therefore safe'. A pilot groups T&C do affect safety. As a result they should be included in the discussion. The Colgan accident is an excellent example - Both pilots satisfied the legal minimums for training and rest. Neither were appropriately rested or trained. The First Officers pay was so low that she was forced economically to commute cross country and sleep on crew room floors in order to meet her work requirements. Her wage was close to qualifying for food stamps and her companies draconian sick policy put her in an untenable position. I am not justifying her decisions. I am showing how T&Cs and barely meeting minimums can affect decision making and safety.
This is a slippery slope. The warning signs are there. Hopefully hindsight won't be needed.