Low fuel emergency in DFW

Mike Young wrote:
A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling.

Is that a fact? Boeing says the -200 has a max range of 3900 nm, the
-300 3395 nm, and the freighter version 3150 nm. Which combination of
continent and ocean did you have in mind? LAX to Heathrow is more than
4700 nm by great circle, for instance.

How bad was that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just
sufficient, but maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks
(full as in complying with take off and landing maxima), how much did
he carry, and why? Having left with less than adequate fuel, at what
point did it become an emergency? How was it "apparently not caused
by attempting to keep the load light to save on opperating
expenses"?

Because, as has been reported in the press and here in this thread, the
root cause was determined to be a malfunctioning fuel valve. Having fuel
on board that you cannot access can lead to an emergency as well.

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
little point rehashing it without more facts.

Yet you're willing to toss out all kinds of speculation and
misinformation without bothering to search out readily available facts.
Hmmmm...