I am quite glad that I have retired; I have had a wonderful flying career that has lasted since I first went solo in 1957.
I recently had a couple of beers with a young man that I had something to do with during his flying career and who is now in his sixth year with FR.
He is now in his third year as a captain and he simply does not recognise the suggestions in the Media that he is under huge pressure to go flying with insufficient fuel.
He tells me that all he has to do is annotate on the voyage report as to why he carried additional fuel. This has NEVER EVER been queried.
I have said this before but I will say it again.
When i was a DC-10 captain with Fred Laker, we always carried extra fuel for JFK and ORD. This was really a waste of time. When the weather was reasonable (most of the time) we didn't need the extra fuel and burned 10% of it getting there.
When the weather was bad, we would go round the MICKE hold for an hour and then end up diverting to Boston.
I then flew the same aircraft for an FAA Part 121 carrier and they went for minimum fuel.
Now, I quite liked that idea in the end. It meant that when we bowled up to MICKE INTXN and were told to go in the hold for an indeterminate time, we asked for an immediate diversion to Bradley.
This took all the guesswork out of the equation.
Trying to carry enough fuel to guarantee a landing at JFK is impossible.
After all, how could you possibly plan for BA closing both runways at LHR for 90 minutes when both cowls come off one of their A319s?