Narrative:

While working esp position in tmu; rst tower called for release of an air carrier from rst to large capacity airport for enroute spacing. I gave rst tower a 17 minute delay on this aircraft due to volume in the overhead stream already in line for the large capacity airport. Five minutes later; rst tower calls back stating that air carrier needed to leave as soon as possible to prevent a minimum fuel situation. I told rst that the air carrier was released as soon as necessary; and attempted to make room in the overhead stream. This involved calling the operations area working the overhead stream and asking them to make a gap very close to ZAU boundary. We ended up not being able to make an appropriate gap; and called ZAU tmu to tell them the situation. They were okay with what we had done; and subsequently slowed the air carrier down significantly to accomplish their required spacing. ZAU called back about 12 minutes later and stated that the air carrier declared minimum fuel with a sector in ZAU. This situation caused a great deal of work to remedy the situation; and could have led to errors in an attempt to accommodate an aircraft declaring minimum fuel. I request that this report be shared with the air carrier's safety program; if in existence. An aircraft that has not even left their departure airport should not be considering minimum fuel before they have even left the ground. Especially with a flight scheduled into a busy terminal such as this large capacity airport; the airline should be planning ahead; and be better prepared to accept delays. I believe the flight crew also needs to prepare better; and review the fuel load a bit more carefully. On future occurrences; I believe I will tell rst tower; or any other tower that may call with a similar request; the release time is firm; and if the aircraft is minimum fuel before even leaving the departure airport; then the crew needs to return to the gate to add fuel. There is no valid excuse for leaving an airport with barely enough fuel to safely arrive at their destination; especially into a busy airport that frequently sees a great deal of volume and delays may be expected. I believe this is becoming a systemic problem with some airlines; as this is not the first time this similar event has happened.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier advised ATC that they needed to depart ASAP to prevent minimum fuel upon arrival at their destination. TMU released the aircraft and coordinated the arrival to the destination where flight declared minimum fuel.

Narrative: While working ESP position in TMU; RST Tower called for release of an air carrier from RST to large capacity airport for enroute spacing. I gave RST Tower a 17 minute delay on this aircraft due to volume in the overhead stream already in line for the large capacity airport. Five minutes later; RST Tower calls back stating that air carrier needed to leave as soon as possible to prevent a minimum fuel situation. I told RST that the air carrier was released as soon as necessary; and attempted to make room in the overhead stream. This involved calling the operations area working the overhead stream and asking them to make a gap very close to ZAU boundary. We ended up not being able to make an appropriate gap; and called ZAU TMU to tell them the situation. They were okay with what we had done; and subsequently slowed the air carrier down significantly to accomplish their required spacing. ZAU called back about 12 minutes later and stated that the air carrier declared minimum fuel with a sector in ZAU. This situation caused a great deal of work to remedy the situation; and could have led to errors in an attempt to accommodate an aircraft declaring minimum fuel. I request that this report be shared with the air carrier's Safety program; if in existence. An aircraft that has not even left their departure airport should not be considering minimum fuel before they have even left the ground. Especially with a flight scheduled into a busy terminal such as this large capacity airport; the airline should be planning ahead; and be better prepared to accept delays. I believe the flight crew also needs to prepare better; and review the fuel load a bit more carefully. On future occurrences; I believe I will tell RST Tower; or any other Tower that may call with a similar request; the release time is firm; and if the aircraft is minimum fuel before even leaving the departure airport; then the crew needs to return to the gate to add fuel. There is no valid excuse for leaving an airport with barely enough fuel to safely arrive at their destination; especially into a busy airport that frequently sees a great deal of volume and delays may be expected. I believe this is becoming a systemic problem with some airlines; as this is not the first time this similar event has happened.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.