Yep, lightning on planes should be mostly a through and through event, without anything more than a hiccup in the electronics. I suspect it was a hiccup we felt as something got slammed off and then back on again.

As for US Airways, I thought they were actually directing the pilots to find ways to shave off the fuel consumption so they can claim it would take less fuel than it currently does, and thereby try and establish a precedent that would allow them to actually load less fuel onto the plane. If traditionally it takes 30,000 lbs of fuel for a 320 to go cross country with the required reserves based on nominal fuel economy, and US Airways is trying to make a case that it can be done with 27,000 lbs instead and still meet the required minimums, I think the pilots and the flying public might have some cause for concern. I never did see the particulars about what US Airways was trying to claim they could get away with, but putting pressure on the flight staff to corroborate such a claim seems unethical and a conflict of interest, IMHO.