Air France plane missing?

[Gabriel]

Here's the flaw in your logic: Bordeaux was never the intended destination of AF447,

Evan, the sentence:

"Fly to Bordeaux as if that was the intended destination"

means that Bordeaux is NOT the intended destination. This was an integral part of "my logic", and hence not a flaw in it.

not even as a stop-over, not unless they wanted to operate the flight at a significant loss, upend their scheduling and alienate customers.

Not that they "want" it, but they are willing to accept this unlikely outcome should, as you've said, "the worst happened"

A flight plan was filed giving the legal destination as Bordeaux in order to allow then to take on less fuel. It's a loophole in the system that, naturally, has become SOP.

No. Under the terms of our "deal", AF made reasonable efforts to sell the flight in a way that it was expectable that enough fuel could be loaded to file the flight plan to Paris (if AF didn't do that, then again I'm with you), but particualr conditions for this flight that day, that were worse than what's reasonably typical, prevented them fom complying simultenously with the customers and with Paris as the filed destination. Either they had to leave payload off the plane (that would be not giving some the customers the service they paid for, that's what you propose) OR they had to use this "loophole" to try and get everybody and everything to Paris with a slightly increased risk of having to do an unwanted fuel stop. More on this in a second.

But lets be clear here, they never intended to land there, and would only do so in a worst-case scenario.

The "worst case scenario" is not really that bad. Let's explore it in further detail.

Let's start quoting parts of the FARs (not that they applied for the AF flight, but to get an idea of the kind of things the regulators ask for):

No person may release for flight or takeoff a turbine-engine powered airplane (other than a turbo-propeller powered airplane) unless, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel--
(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport specified in the flight release; and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport under standard temperature conditions.

Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.

You have head winds forecasted, do you expect weahter detours, do you expect ATC delays? Add that to your fuel BEFORE RESERVES.

The reserves are for things that go worse than forecasted or expected.

Note that, for the purpose of this regulation, the departure, destination and alternate airports are the only airports that count. It doesn't make any distinction for flights that overflight suitable airports every about 1/2 hour or flights that will have actually nowhere else to land if needed.

This rule is designed to give only a very tiny chance that you run out of fuel before landing at your destination or alternate airports. In other words, this rule was created with a "worst case" scenario as you've said(but there can always be a case even worse than that)

Now look at this:

a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency situation as set forth in Sec. 121.557.

I don't know exactly how that works for fuel, but I think you are required to land with 30 minutes of fuel or declare an emergency.

So if you see that you are going to arrive with less than that, you have to request a diversion for a fuel stop. If you are not granted the diversion for example due to trafic, you should declare a fuel emergency and announce that you are going to divert. If a diversion is not available of less safe that landing at the destination with less than 30 minutes of fuel, you must declare a fuel emergency and go for the destination. And note that the emergency must be declared not when you have 30 minutes of fuel, but when you note that you will be landing with less than that.

Now it's important to understand this: There isn't a line up to which the ammount of fuel is safe to do the flight and below it it's unsafe.

Instead, more fuel increases the chances that you will get to your destination with the required reserves, and less fuel reduces those chances, all ina continous scale.

There is, however, a line that draws legal from illegal fuel for the flight.

So 10kg less of fuel might render the flight illegal, while it would not make the flight less safe from a practical point of view (because 10kg is such a small quantity that is cosnumed in a few seconds and can't even be measured with accuracy).

Now, because the fuel reserves are so conservative, most (by large) flights end up landing with quite more than the minimum 30 minutes required, simply because the "worst case" scenario assumed by the regulators almost never become true.

And it's not like AF filed a flight plan to Marrakesh, which is more than 2 hours away of Paris. It filed Bordeaux, roughly half an hour from Paris. Does it makes any difference? Yes.

You need to understand the following:

Say that 2 twin flights departed at the same time time from the same airport, with the only difference being that one carried just enugh fuel to legally file Bourdeaux as destination (with the hope of getting there with enough fuel to switch to Paris) and the other removed enoug payload to complete the needed fuel to legally file Paris (same TOW for both flights).

Both flights then have exactly enough usable fuel to, with the expected conditions, fly to their filed destination, make and IFR approach, 10% of all that, miss the approach, fly to the alternate, and another 30 minutes.

Say that both flights encounter all the same issues (ATC delays, winds different than forecasetd, flight level restrictions, weather detours, etc...)

It is clear that if those issues are benign enough, both flights will land at Paris with at least the required reserve, while if the issues are bad enough, both flights will end up landing at Boredeaux for being not able to stretch it to Paris and land there with the required reserves (regardless of the fact that one flight was legally dispatched to Paris), and finally there will be one range of conditions that are bad enough for the Bordeaux flight to need to land in Bordeaux but good enough that the Paris flight can make it to Paris.

Now, the ammount of fuel loaded in any of those flights is so similar, and so hughe compared with the added 30 minutes cruise, that range of issues needed for each flight landing at their filed airports is very narrow, and hence the chance of that happening is very small. Most likely, both flights will end up landing in Bordeaux or both in Paris.

The probability to have a different outcome in each flight (one landing at Bordeaux and the other at Paris) would increase if the distance from both cities were greater (like with Makarresh, which is 4 times farther from Paris).

So (I'm going to invent some numbers that look "reasonable" to me) say that AF sells the plane in a way that, on average, 75% of the times the plane can be loaded with enough fuel to file for Paris, and that in the other 25% they file for Bordeaux with the hope that they can later switch to paris becasue no so much of the reserves are used.

Further say that, in those cases where the Bordeaux strategy is used, 95% of the time the actual landing airport would be either Bordeaux or Paris regardless of the strategy used (file Bordeaux or remove payload), with a 5% of the flights filed for Bordeaux that actually land at Bordeaux when they would have been able to reach paris have they left just enough payload on the ground to add just enough fuel to make Paris a legal filed destination.

That means that, on average, 1% of the flights would end up making what you call an unfair fuel stop, and causing the customers a not so terrible disservice of arriving an hour or two late (not so terrible compared to not taking some persons or packages on the plane at all, at least for those customers that would be much worse).

I say that's a reasonable effort from AF to prevent a fuel stop in a what should have been a non-stop flight. You can disagree and say that AF is not doing enough, but I say that it's a valid decision for AF.

Therefore, to make a significant diversion around weather results in the worst-case scenario. I call that a dangerous element of pressure introduced into the decision process.

It is such if the culture in the company is that. If the culture is "don't take any shortcuts or risks that you wouldn't do or take in a "normal" flight", then there is no more pressure than in a normal flight.

If the culture is not that, or if the culture is such that in normal flights the pressure is already too much, then the problem is not what you call "the loophole", it's the safety culture, and a safety problem already with or without the "loophole".

And about the gray zones you mentioned, those gray zones always exist, and it's the pilot judgment (strongly affected by training and company culture) that makes of each gray a black or a white. Decisions to fly through some mild weather (say green radar returns) when a detour would have been even better from a safety point of view are made everyday.

Not always the correct decision is the safest decision. The decision, though, has to be at least safe enough and legal (not the same thing). I don't want to bring my ironing list of "safety improvements" again, jut just to name one, if the take-off weight is limmited by the runway length, removing just enough weight to make a legal take-off is legal and safe enough, but removing even more weight to have for example some runway margin for a V1 cut would be undoubtly safer (and more expensive).

Yes, absolutely, without question. Ask any passenger this question and they will agree. Passenger airlines must give priority to passenger service because they position themselves to consumers as passenger airlines and create their brand value in this way.

I absolutely disagree. I've never seen a flight advertised as "passenger only" or "free of revenue cargo".

Most airlines do take cargo too. For example, Aerolineas Argentinas and Austral have always had a cargo company called JetPack, and I've never seen a JetPack plane, so it doesn't take any effort to figure where are they taking the cargo.

If you booked a 7-day vacation cruise from Portland to Juneau and it laid up in an industrial port in Seattle for a day to take on drilling equipment, wouldn't you feel a bit gipped?

And what if you were a patient waiting for a critical medical supply?

[/quote]If airlines want to give pax and freight equal priority, they need to advertise the service as such.[/quote]
Again I disagree. Just not advertising that pax will have priority over cargo is enough.

Now, from a shipper point of view, if I was shipping cargo and needed it to be there on time, I would send it with an air-freight oriented service like FedEx, DHL

Well, these two and others (like UPS) have operations in Argentina, and I've never seen an airplane in their colors in Ezeiza. I wonder how do they take their cargo from/to Argentina?

I am saying: give priority to passenger service, provide adequate fuel to reach the destination in unfavorable conditions, then take on all the cargo you can. And that a seat purchased is a seat now owned on that flight by the passenger.

Except for giving priority to passengers, this is more or less the same I've said:

Provide adequate fuel to reach the destination in "reasonable" unfavorable conditions, then take all the payload you can. The probelm si what if the conditions are more unfavorable?

You say "put as much fuel as needed to cope with the more unfavorable conditons and leave as much paylod as needed off", and that's a valid decision.

My claim is that "leave fuel off without compromising safety and in a way that barely reduces the chances to reach the intended destination without an additional stop" is another valid decision.

That you don't like it is another matter.

And if that was done in a way that it compromised safety, then that's yet another matter.

[EconomyClass]

Wow, this is getting convoluted. But one thing I know from living where I do is that thunderstorms are never "unbroken". They are continuous in a vertical direction, but tend to be isolated in the horizontal direction. So I'm quite sure there were places available to pass through that were better and places that were worse. The point of diversion would not have been to get totally out of the weather but simply to get the best available conditions.

[mfeldt]

While the airlines have an interest in cutting cost as far as possible, everybody knows that a crash and the cost involved will make the savings you can make operationally by cutting corners look like peanuts. So do you seriously think an airline will pressure its pilots into a behavior that is so un-economical?

It's a matter of human risk perception. Of course the airline will not be so dumb to pressure their pilots into a crash - but managers will tend to think that they can save a little money here and there by bending the rules slightly, hoping or knowing that in the vast majority of cases no crash will occur. Except this time it did occur.

You have proof of that do you?



12 other flights shared more or less the same route that Flight 447 was using at the time of the accident.

Weather maps have been posted in this thread over and over. The last one by Evan in this direct response to your Africa question.

[Evan]

Wow, There's a lot here that my logic does not quite follow. I think we have to have the same facts before us. I think one of the most important questions I would like answered (no one here has answered this yet) is: what does ETF mean on the flight plan designation?

Let's start quoting parts of the FARs (not that they applied for the AF flight, but to get an idea of the kind of things the regulators ask for):

No person may release for flight or takeoff a turbine-engine powered airplane (other than a turbo-propeller powered airplane) unless, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel--
(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport specified in the flight release; and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport under standard temperature conditions.

Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.

You have head winds forecasted, do you expect weahter detours, do you expect ATC delays? Add that to your fuel BEFORE RESERVES.

The reserves are for things that go worse than forecasted or expected.

Isn't #2 the variable reserve and #3 and #4 the fixed reserve? I'm only talking about not sacrificing variable reserve for cargo. MCM has already stated that variable reserve is usually less than 10% in practice, and that the actual requirement is a matter of individual operator policy.

It is clear that if those issues are benign enough, both flights will land at Paris with at least the required reserve, while if the issues are bad enough, both flights will end up landing at Boredeaux for being not able to stretch it to Paris and land there with the required reserves (regardless of the fact that one flight was legally dispatched to Paris), and finally there will be one range of conditions that are bad enough for the Bordeaux flight to need to land in Bordeaux but good enough that the Paris flight can make it to Paris.

Now, the ammount of fuel loaded in any of those flights is so similar, and so hughe compared with the added 30 minutes cruise, that range of issues needed for each flight landing at their filed airports is very narrow, and hence the chance of that happening is very small. Most likely, both flights will end up landing in Bordeaux or both in Paris.

Here is the difference in fuel requirements for (DCT) vs. (ETF):

(From the BEA Interim Report)
The three flight plans proposed were:
(1) ETF M 0.82 load 38.6 t TOF 68.4 t TOW 233.0 t
(2) DCT M 0.82 load 37.5 t TOF 69.5 t TOW 233.0 t
(3) DCT M 0.81 with a planned load of 37.8 t TOF 68.5 t TOW 232.3 t
The route was identical on the three flight plans.
The ETF allowed the load to be increased by reducing the route reserve. The
latter is calculated from a decision point up to the final destination. The route reserve thus went from 1,450 Kg to 360 Kg.

A difference of 1,090kg (1.09 metric ton, or 2403 lbs).

Now look at the sat view of the CB cluster they traversed, taking note of the nearby gaps where they could have circumnavigated the worst areas. Could a reasonable diversion be done within the range of 2,400 lbs of fuel at cruise level? I don't know, but if the answer is yes, than I see a potential safety issue.

I absolutely disagree. I've never seen a flight advertised as "passenger only" or "free of revenue cargo".

Again (and again), I'm not saying 'free of cargo'. I'm saying priority to passenger service, then cargo if weight permits.

Please let me know if you can define ETF for me. That might help me to better understand what really happened with flight planning here.

[Peter Kesternich]

Please let me know if you can define ETF for me. That might help me to better understand what really happened with flight planning here.

Evan - I haven't found any hard evidence but here is what I suppose it means in the context of the flight plan:

ETF - economical track... meaning following the route that takes the most advantage of favorable winds (avoiding headwinds, using tailwinds)

DCT - direct... following the shortest possible route from A to B

Maybe one of the pilots on the forum can corroborate this.

[EconomyClass]

Weather maps have been posted in this thread over and over. The last one by Evan in this direct response to your Africa question.

Missed that picture. Certainly does not show an unbroken line of storms.

[busfan]

basic instruments

I understand that the fingers are pointing at inaccurate airspeed ratings, but would an analog altimeter have at least told the pilot that he was descending, and maybe with fine tuning of the thrust, he could have arrested the descent?

[Peter Kesternich]

Please let me know if you can define ETF for me. That might help me to better understand what really happened with flight planning here.

Okay, Evan - forget what I said further up... ETF means something different.

Here is the difference in fuel requirements for (DCT) vs. (ETF):

(From the BEA Interim Report)
The three flight plans proposed were:
(1) ETF M 0.82 load 38.6 t TOF 68.4 t TOW 233.0 t
(2) DCT M 0.82 load 37.5 t TOF 69.5 t TOW 233.0 t
(3) DCT M 0.81 with a planned load of 37.8 t TOF 68.5 t TOW 232.3 t
The route was identical on the three flight plans.
The ETF allowed the load to be increased by reducing the route reserve. The
latter is calculated from a decision point up to the final destination. The route reserve thus went from 1,450 Kg to 360 Kg.

A difference of 1,090kg (1.09 metric ton, or 2403 lbs).

Hmmmm - Evan - did you also read the part, where the interim report says that AF447 carried 70.4t of fuel at brake release? That's 0.9t MORE than the highest fuel number given in your quote for any of the three flightplans. Maybe that should put to rest the argument that they did not fly around the weather because they were short on fuel.

[Myndee]

OK! I finally read all of the posts about the flight plan issue. Very confusing! All I really have to say on the matter is that if I am paying for a ticket, I want to get to my destination in one piece. I have been in a situation that NO passenger should ever be put through. (Being forced to land in a TERRIBLE severe thunderstorm.) I don't ever want to do that again, and if it could have been avoided by going to another airport, I would have been okay with that. The plane was low on fuel and the alternate airports apparently had the same type of weather and it was too late to go back. This is what sparked my sudden fear of flying.

So, does anyone know of what is going on with the search that was supposed to start last month?

Edited to add small off-topic: I ordered Whiskey Romeo Zulu and it should be here in a couple of days.

[Evan]

Hmmmm - Evan - did you also read the part, where the interim report says that AF447 carried 70.4t of fuel at brake release? That's 0.9t MORE than the highest fuel number given in your quote for any of the three flightplans. Maybe that should put to rest the argument that they did not fly around the weather because they were short on fuel.

No, sorry, you are right. I thought 70.4 was the block fuel order but it was TOF.

I am confused by the wording in the report. It says the ETF flight plan reduced the reserve:

The route reserve thus went from 1,450 Kg to 360 Kg.

...but earlier on:

The aircraft left the gate with a calculated weight of 233,257 kg. The estimated
takeoff weight was 232,757 kg(11), for a maximum authorised takeoff weight of
233 t. This takeoff weight broke down as follows:

 empty weight in operating condition: 126,010 kg,
 passenger weight: 17,615 kg (126 men, 82 women, 7 children and one baby(12)),
 weight in cargo compartment (freight and luggage): 18,732 kg,
 fuel weight: 70,400 kg.

The on-board fuel weight corresponded to forecast trip fuel of 63,900 kg,
route factor fuel of 1,460 kg, final reserve of 2,200 kg, fuel to alternate airport
reserve of 1,900 kg and 940 kg additional fuel. An LMC corrected the definitive
load sheet to take into account one passenger less without baggage.

It seems that there may have been adequate fuel for a diversion without requiring a technical stopover.
My questions becomes:

1) is a DCT flight plan still a flight plan to Bordeaux rather than Paris?

2) what does ETF mean?

Now I'm lost again:

 Regulatory fuel:
The regulatory fuel necessary to perform a fl ight is determined at brake release before
takeoff, thus 69.5 t in this case.

That's to Bordeaux, right?

[Peter Kesternich]

All the three flight plans shown in Appendix 7 on the AF447 interim report list GIG - CDG as the route they are calculated for.

The regulatory fuel is what MUST be on board for the flight to depart legally, i.e. 69.5t. The REAL fuel on board at brake release was 70.4t.

[Evan]

Ok, where does Bordeaux come into this equation? I have no idea how to read the last part of this flight plan, but I recognize the ICAO designations. Can you decode the reference to Bordeaux:

LFPG (Paris CDG)YEYX SBGL (Rio GIG)YOYX SBGLAFRK
(FPL-AFR447-IS
-A332/H-SPRIJWYG/SD
-SBGL2200
-N0481F350 DCT AWAKE UZ10 FLIRT/M082F350 UZ10 NTL UN873
INTOL/M082F350 UN873 SALPU/M082F370 UN873 ORARO/M082F370
UN873
ISOKA/N0471F370 UN873 LIMAL/N0466F390 UN873 SAMAR/N0468F380
UN873
BAROK/N0465F400 DCT PORTA UN873 MOKOR UN741 NTS/N0484F280
UN741
KEPER UT182 ROMLO/N0483F270 DCT
-LFPG1034 LFPO (Paris ORY)
-EET/SBBS0028 SBRE0050 SBAO0302 GOOO0349 GVSC0512 GCCC0606
LIMAL0643
GMMM (Casablanca)0731 LPPC (Lisbon)0816 LECM (Madrid)0851 LFRR (Brest)0930 LFFF (Paris FIR)1004 RIF/ZMR UN976 DGO
UL176 SSN UP181 ENSAC SOLSO DIRAX LFBD (Bordeaux) REG/FGZCP SEL/CPHQ DAT/SV
DOF/090531)

[Evan]

-EET/SBBS0028 SBRE0050 SBAO0302 GOOO0349 GVSC0512 GCCC0606
LIMAL0643
GMMM (Casablanca)0731 LPPC (Lisbon)0816 LECM (Madrid)0851 LFRR (Brest)0930 LFFF (Paris FIR)1004 RIF/ZMR UN976 DGO
UL176 SSN UP181 ENSAC SOLSO DIRAX LFBD (Bordeaux) REG/FGZCP SEL/CPHQ DAT/SV
DOF/090531)

Reclearance in flight, right?

[MCM]

Yes you are correct it is reclearance in flight. In this case, in terms of ATC, the flight was flight planned and cleared to Paris, with Bordeaux listed as a possible other destination and the route requested to it if the crew decide to go there.

[Gabriel]

Ok, I'm trying to put the parts together.

Since it's the first time I come across thys type of data, I admit it's more a guesswork job based on context that actually understanding what's written, but here we go and I hope that someone used to manage this type of info (MCM, Wilco?) will help.

The flight was prepared between 15 h 28 and 18 h 59. Paris Orly was given
as the alternate airport at destination. Given the estimated load of 37.8 t,
the dossier included a main flight plan at a standard Mach of M 0.82 with
an ETF at Bordeaux Mérignac with alternate at Toulouse Blagnac as well as
two additional direct flight plans, one at Mach 0.82 and the other at a "slower
Mach", i.e. M 0.81. A summary table of the loads offered enabled the crew to
make the choice of the definitive flight plan from among these three options.

The three flight plans proposed were:
(1) ETF M 0.82 load 38.6 t TOF 68.4 t TOW 233.0 t
(2) DCT M 0.82 load 37.5 t TOF 69.5 t TOW 233.0 t
(3) DCT M 0.81 with a planned load of 37.8 t TOF 68.5 t TOW 232.3 t
The route was identical on the three flight plans.
The ETF allowed the load to be increased by reducing the route reserve. The
latter is calculated from a decision point up to the final destination. The route
reserve thus went from 1,450 Kg to 360 Kg.
The flight level, the load reducing factor and the take-off weight (TOW) for
flight plans 1 and 2 are identical. The difference in load is compensated by
fuel. The navigation log (developed flight plan) was thus usable for flight
plans 1 and 2.
The ATC flight plan in ETF was filed until the destination with (in box 18 ) a
re-clearance in flight (RIF) including the decision point, the route and the
optional technical stopover.

This part looks pretty clear. Don't know the exact meaning of ETF, but it's obviouly the flight plan with the optional technical stopover at Boredeaux.

There was an ESTIMATED payload of 37.8 t, and three flight plan were prepared (not filed):

One with a payload slightly above the estimated load that, due to the plane being MTOW limmited at 233.0 t, required less fuel and hence the inclusion of the optional stopover at Boredeaux (with Toulouse, not CDG, as alternate).

The second one with the minimum fuel that would CDG a legal destination without the optinal stopover, and hence with a reduced payload to compensate fot the higher weigh (remember the plane was MTOW limmited).

The third one was done using the estimated payload and a slower more economic speed that made Paris legal without a stopover.

I wondered why they decided to file the plan 1 and not the 3, and concluded that it was risky in the sense that if the actual payload was slightly greater than estimated, they would have to scrap plan 3 and go for 1 or 2 anyway.

Filing 2 would have had no adventage over filing 1. If the actual payload happened to be low enough to enable plan 2 they could still fly plan 1 and simply not opt for the optional stopover.

Filing 1 would enable to fly with a payload of up to 38.6 t and still have a good chance to make it to Paris, and the chances would icnrease with every pound of payload below 38.6 that could be replaced with fuel.

Yes, the route reserves FOR PARIS went from 1,4 t to 0,4 t by replacing about one ton of fuel with one ton of payload (plan 2 vs plan 1), but these were just scenarios. If the actual payload happened to be the estimated 37.8 t and the 0.8 t of payload not used (from plan 1) was used with fuel, they would have be planning to reach Paris with a route reserve of 1.2 t (0.4 + 0.8 ) instead of 1.4 t of plan 2.

Now you see that the difference was very small, and that the chances were BY LARGE that they would be able not to opt for the stopover and go to Paris (only 0.2 t of the 1.4 t of original reserves had to be not used by Bordeaux).

So they filed plan 1 (plan 2 would by like a special case of plan 1 if the payload happened to be low enough)

But then...

The aircraft left the gate with a calculated weight of 233,257 kg. The estimated
takeoff weight was 232,757 kg(11), for a maximum authorised takeoff weight of
233 t. This takeoff weight broke down as follows:

 empty weight in operating condition: 126,010 kg,
 passenger weight: 17,615 kg (126 men, 82 women, 7 children and one baby(12)),
 weight in cargo compartment (freight and luggage): 18,732 kg,
 fuel weight: 70,400 kg.

Only 36.3 t of payload showed for the flight, not the 37.8 estimated, not the 38.6 assumed for plan 1, not the 37.5 of plan 2. That left enough space for an additional 1.2 t of fuel over plan 1 (direct with no optional stopover), taking it from the minimum of 69.5 to take of bound to Paris with no optional stopover to 70.4 (yes, I know there is an inconsistency there, I get an additional 1.2 t of fuel one one side, and "only" 0.9 t on the other side, the reason is that the plane took off with 232.7 t and not the 233 t of the flight plans 1 and 2, so they had 0.3 t missing).

So now the condition was even better than for plan 1. Appart from all the reserves legally required to make it direct to paris without considering an optional stopover, they had an additional reserve of 0.9t. Still, fligh plan 1 was good to go (ATC really doesn't care about how much fuel you have on-board as long as you are legal, and certainly were legal for a flight plan including an optional stopover ar Bordeaux to which they would just eventually say "no thanks, I keep going to Paris".

Hence:

The on-board fuel weight corresponded to forecast trip fuel of 63,900 kg,
route factor fuel of 1,460 kg, final reserve of 2,200 kg, fuel to alternate airport
reserve of 1,900 kg and 940 kg additional fuel.

(All those fuel figures are regarding Paris, not Bordeaux)

Do you REALLY understad the implications of this?

OUR PAGES AND DAYS OF DISCUSSION REGARDING UNADVERTISED POTENTIAL FUEL STOPS AND HOW THAT AFFECTED THE SAFETY AND THE SERVICE WAS POINTLESS (regarding this case at least).

Now, how did we start this discussion from a non-issue in the first place? What triggered us to analyze this?