But 2 out of 3 actually landed just above minimum and there were 4 low fuel maydays to Valenci that day

:= don't let facts get in the way of your self righteous indignation, will you kriasmiler - they don't publish fuel tables, and their flight plans are actually quite generous (eg they don't use 3% contingency in place of 5%) and the burn seems generous). And it's a very very big airline. When I worked there, I always seemed to gain fuel en route vs flight plan, and in my latter life elsewhere, as often as not, be losing fuel.

I was going to mention that...

Flight International reported on it and gave the fuel figures for the three RYR aeroplanes. They all departed and diverted with sufficient fuel, but ATC delays at Valencia caused the Maydays. As a result only one landed slightly below minimum. Apparently a South American long-haul that did not declare a Mayday landed with very low fuel.

You need to be well ahead of things in situations like that. Seeing ATC 'becoming overloaded' and declaring a Mayday early kept them safe.

That one was not caused by the airline in question but by ATC. And it was funny that the "real" story of the A340 landing really short did not make news while the 737's which didn't were discussed widely.

Jump-seated once from GLA-MAN with an idiot TCX management pilot, who took plog of 4.6 tons in an empty A330. Legal, but crass. Said idiot got caught out badly using plog fuel on a long one to CUN. He was forced to divert to a veery nearby airfield on super-low fuel. Still he didn't learn his lesson. And he is still a management pillot with a UK operator. Sad business, boyo.

what’s wrong with taking flight plan fuel on a GLA-MAN flight? Assuming nice weather etc

Over in my part of the world, I taxied out for departure along with a couple of the competitors aircraft. There was a delay and shortly afterwards a runway change when we were close to the holding point. Instead of being at the front of the queue we were now at the back and facing a lengthy taxi. Both of the other aircraft had to return to the terminal to refuel. It makes me wonder how close fuel is being cut with some operators.

too close for comfort-easy lands with 18m fuel
 

Kiris; You wonder "how close" ? I have the answer, as per the thread title ;" Too close for comfort" in countless occasions where many 'Operators' think they are being clever.

In my Cowboy outfit, walked away from one of many chop rides and playing the fuel policy, I quietly asked the FO who congratulated me on my performance if he was aware of the fuel state. He beamed with pride and responded" Yeah, we are , probably, the most fuel efficient operator in Europe.

Ex Mill Chopper who still thought that there was a war on also said " That's the way we do it, well done. Few more sectors (chop-rides) and you'll be ok. I was well on the path to better things anyway.

Because all the media wanted to 'point fingers' at the 737 airline. And they failed because there was no reason to 'point fingers'. The media don't have a clue who the A340 airline is and wouldn't understand the situation that it ended up in. Sad, but simple.

However, that does highlight yet another reason for considering extra fuel: "ATC"! A very valid point in some parts of the world, as this case has shown. But seeing that problem in advance and calling Mayday, as those 737s did, puts you in a better position for a safe landing.

krismiler's last Post highlights yet another aspect of the "ATC reason" for considering more fuel. I knew an airline that brought in a 'mandate' from Ops to carry PLOG minimum fuel. On a day soon after with no weather problems one of the Captains did just that on a Friday afternoon. The queue at the hold for departure was long enough (as he knew it would be on a Friday afternoon!) that he went way over his taxi fuel, so they had to return for fuel (not all that easy when in that queue, so a long delay to get to the front of the queue, then taxi up the runway to taxi back!!). Point safely (but expensively) proven and that 'mandate' disappeared!! People in offices do not always know what is best.

Perfect strategy!!!
 

That exactly what the upper management want. Someone who will "tow the party line" no matter how useless it is.

It looked at the time that not only the media were eager to point fingers but the Spanish authorities as well.... it was a pretty dirty discussion at the time also because allegedly some spanish carriers were given priorities over the flights in question helping to cause the situation that emerged.

In the mean time quite a lot of people had to concede that those airlines may warrant criticism in many regards but their safety record is something that others envy them for. Why? Maybe because those airlines in question know DARN well that they can't afford any major incident or accident because they would be torn to pieces, even though other players may get away with much worse stuff and nothing happens.

When will the official report be published?

Preliminary Report (just the very bare facts): HB-JZR_VB_e.pdf (admin.ch)

The most recent Final Report I can see on the SUST website, published in mid-November, is for a March 2022 accident, so don't hold your breath.

On average 3.5-5% of the extra weight/hr

Carry an extra ton of fuel will burn around 30-40 kgs of additional fuel per hour depending on the engines fitted and performance deterioration factor. The fuel burn on the A320 is about 40kgs per minute, less when light at higher altitude and more when heavy low down.

Roughly a minute’s flying per ton carried which isn’t much when compared with ATC delays but when multiplied by flights per day, over a year you’re talking about a fair number of hours.

Back on BA Classic 747 days, management decided to have an initiative against the unnecessary carriage of excess fuel. One particular Captain was routinely carrying an extra 5 tons and despite no end of blandishments over tea and biscuits, letters of re proof etc continued to freight fuel across the world. The final chapter of this saga was when the Flight Manager received an early morning phone call from this Captain. The conversation went like this
” Good morning John, I thought I’d let you know that I decided to take Flight plan fuel into LHR this morning”

Hello Bill, That really is excellent news .. well done!

” Yes and `I’m speaking to you from the hotel in Manchester”

Names have been changed to protect the innocent🧑🏼‍✈️
”

any more info,, did they divert because of weather and didn’t/ couldn’t wait too long. Why didn’t they commit to stay ?
Or was it to prove a point which maybe it didn’t
As you said a while ago so maybe different rules back then.

Used to fly into LHR some years ago. I seem to recall there was a note on the Jepp plate that up to 30 mins holding could be expected at busy times. Would the BA Flight Plan have included fuel for this.

Not as a specific item on the plan in my time there (very very late 80s up to about five years ago).

These days of course you'd expect routine holding to be accounted for in the statistical contingency figure.

But LHR was never just "normal" holding time. It was one of the places we tanked fuel from the more expensive departure airfields.