Committing to land at LHR

[Hand Solo]

My employer has a policy whereby given certain conditions we can dispense with diversion fuel and commit to landing at LHR, the reasoning being theres no difference between burning the diversion fuel and landing at LHR with reserves and burning the diversion fuel and landing at the diversion airfield with reserves. Recently whilst burning holes in the sky in the LAM hold my colleagues in the other seat have told me that when we decide to commit to LHR we should tell ATC. This seems rather peculiar to me, and on the occasions they have told ATC it has been met with a "Huh?". My understanding was that whether we commit or not makes no difference to our EAT into LHR and the only thing that would get us any form or priority treatment would be declaring an emergency. Can any LATCC types tell me if there has been an increase in Big Airways aircraft telling you they are committing to land at LHR, or if it makes a blind bit of difference to you?

[Gonzo]

The Manual of Air Traffic Services says that we are not required to give priority to an aircraft that declares it's short of fuel, unless it declares and emergency. Of course, common sense prevails; we had one inbound recently say that it would not be able to accept a go around due to 'the fuel situation', but wouldn't declare an emergency when asked. The spacing was widened out slightly to decrease the chances of a missed approach. Of course, it didn't help that he told us when he was established at 10 miles!

My radar colleagues will be able to answer your question about informing them if you're committed to LHR.

Gonzo.