Narrative:

[We were flight planned] to depart with 3;080 pounds of fuel. [Our] minimum takeoff fuel was 2;900 pounds. I requested an additional 800 pounds of fuel as a safety measure. Our planned fuel burn was indicated on the flight release as 180 pounds of taxi and 1;077 pounds for enroute burn off. Planned arrival fuel in ZZZ1 was stated as being 1;823 pounds. This is approximately 962 pounds per tank. The amber fuel quantity caution indication comes on at 880 pounds per tank. This was only a buffer of 82 pounds per side. Fuel was brought to 3;900 pounds (with the addition of 800 pounds). We ultimately departed and landed with 2;366 pounds; thus burning 1;544 pounds due to ATC vectoring and sequencing. If this flight had departed with the original fuel load; we would have landed with only 1;566 pounds in the tanks (783 per side). Please see the above fuel quantity note. Also on the flight release was a hold fuel quantity of 512 pounds. We did no holding; so logic would seem that I should have that unused fuel in the tanks upon arrival. However; if you remove that hold fuel from the equation; my originally planned arrival fuel arriving would have been 1;311 pounds; solidly in the red warning range.the company is constantly shorting us on fuel. I don't know if there is an error in the fuel planning or no consideration considered for ATC contingencies. The [most optimistic] flight planned route is not always available. Often times; there is considerable vectoring; speed changes or sequencing issues given by ATC for flow control into major airports. These factors are not accounted for in the fuel burn calculations. It happens to me almost daily; sometimes twice a day. I am constantly requesting additional fuel increases to meet satisfy requirements and unplanned contingencies. At times; I do not have enough fuel for even a simple go-around; unless I add fuel before take-off. I am aware of this always; thus the reason for my request for additional fuel. I had to upload fuel at least 5 times this past week; and almost always on the shortest of trips. The company should re-evaluate the proposed fuel burn rates and add additional fuel as a buffer to all flights. The current policy is unsafe.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An ERJ-135 Captain provided a detailed example of what he believes to be routine overly optimistic fuel burns planned for flights using the methodology applied by his airline to determine the fuel required. The fuel burnouts thus proposed may result in planned arrivals with fuel quantity caution lights illuminated.

Narrative: [We were flight planned] to depart with 3;080 pounds of fuel. [Our] minimum takeoff fuel was 2;900 pounds. I requested an additional 800 pounds of fuel as a safety measure. Our planned fuel burn was indicated on the Flight Release as 180 pounds of taxi and 1;077 pounds for enroute burn off. Planned arrival fuel in ZZZ1 was stated as being 1;823 pounds. This is approximately 962 pounds per tank. The Amber Fuel quantity caution indication comes on at 880 pounds per tank. This was only a buffer of 82 pounds per side. Fuel was brought to 3;900 pounds (with the addition of 800 pounds). We ultimately departed and landed with 2;366 pounds; thus burning 1;544 pounds due to ATC vectoring and sequencing. IF this flight had departed with the original fuel load; we would have landed with only 1;566 pounds in the tanks (783 per side). Please see the above fuel quantity note. Also on the Flight Release was a hold fuel quantity of 512 pounds. We did no holding; so logic would seem that I should have that unused fuel in the tanks upon arrival. However; if you remove that hold fuel from the equation; my originally planned arrival fuel arriving would have been 1;311 pounds; solidly in the RED Warning range.The company is constantly shorting us on fuel. I don't know if there is an error in the fuel planning or no consideration considered for ATC contingencies. The [most optimistic] flight planned route is not always available. Often times; there is considerable vectoring; speed changes or sequencing issues given by ATC for flow control into major airports. These factors are not accounted for in the fuel burn calculations. It happens to me almost daily; sometimes twice a day. I am constantly requesting additional fuel increases to meet satisfy requirements and unplanned contingencies. At times; I do not have enough fuel for even a simple go-around; unless I add fuel before take-off. I am aware of this always; thus the reason for my request for additional fuel. I had to upload fuel at least 5 times this past week; and almost always on the shortest of trips. The company should re-evaluate the proposed fuel burn rates and add additional fuel as a buffer to all flights. The current policy is unsafe.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.