Narrative:

The flight plan was planned further south; over nat a; that is normal for this direction and route. We had a cost index of 289; a flight time of 11:04 (+06); and a total burn of 257;542 pounds. After reviewing the upper winds I called the dispatcher to consider another route of flight that may save both time and fuel. My conversation with the dispatcher revealed a more northerly route; with less wind; total flight time of 10:58 (on time); a cost index of 54 and a total burn of 245;300 lbs. Basically this flight would have saved 12;000 pounds of fuel had it been optimized on the route I suggested.the reasoning given by the dispatcher for not filing the more efficient route was the complexity of validating with european ATC. I was informed it would require him to 'piece' the 'validation' together taking more time than he had available. He repeated the route we got was 'validated' and it was a 'good one.' for the purpose of discussion turbulence avoidance was not a factor on this day's operation.these were the 'red flags' my crew and I noticed during the flight planning and review process:*an abnormal routing for this flight; a more southerly routing.*a cost index (ci) of 289 (normal ci is approximately 40 - 90).*total flight time 11:04 (six minutes over scheduled)*the upper winds chart indicated we were flying for a much greater time with a headwind over the planned route when compared to a more normal northerly route.*no significant turbulence forecast for the planned or alternative route possibilities.things for consideration:*it is unacceptable; except for mitigating ATC or other requirements; to burn 12;000 pounds of additional fuel when it is clearly not needed.*if the dispatcher staffing is so short the individuals cannot properly flight plan and monitor the flights assigned to them then questions of both safety and economy should be asked and answered.*[our airline] recently spent millions of dollars training pilots; dispatchers and other personnel about the need and practice of saving fuel. The cost of burning 12;000 pounds of extra fuel is estimated to be approximately $3;500. Considering this unneeded expense; was the effectiveness of the operational efficiency course (oet) course achieved and is there truly a commitment by upper united management to implement the needed processes and manpower required to achieve the fuel savings goals?to summarize:I personally realize it is often difficult to achieve optimum results in every operation; flight and effort made. However; it is unacceptable to accept such obvious inefficiencies when they can be avoided. The members of my crew expressed their feelings of antipathy as we left eddf operations with a flight plan; which needlessly burned 12;000 extra pounds of fuel; and that may be the real cost of today's flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747 Air Crew; after receiving a dispatch release from their Dispatcher; asked the Dispatcher if a more northerly route would save time and fuel. It would have but the Dispatcher stated that the process of changing the routing would have taken more time than he had available.

Narrative: The flight plan was planned further south; over NAT A; that is normal for this direction and route. We had a Cost Index of 289; a flight time of 11:04 (+06); and a total burn of 257;542 pounds. After reviewing the upper winds I called the dispatcher to consider another route of flight that may save both time and fuel. My conversation with the dispatcher revealed a more northerly route; with less wind; total flight time of 10:58 (on time); a Cost Index of 54 and a total burn of 245;300 lbs. Basically this flight would have saved 12;000 pounds of fuel had it been optimized on the route I suggested.The reasoning given by the dispatcher for not filing the more efficient route was the complexity of validating with European ATC. I was informed it would require him to 'piece' the 'validation' together taking more time than he had available. He repeated the route we got was 'validated' and it was a 'good one.' For the purpose of discussion turbulence avoidance was not a factor on this day's operation.These were the 'red flags' my crew and I noticed during the flight planning and review process:*An abnormal routing for this flight; a more southerly routing.*A Cost Index (CI) of 289 (normal CI is approximately 40 - 90).*Total flight time 11:04 (six minutes over scheduled)*The upper winds chart indicated we were flying for a much greater time with a headwind over the planned route when compared to a more normal northerly route.*No significant turbulence forecast for the planned or alternative route possibilities.Things for consideration:*It is unacceptable; except for mitigating ATC or other requirements; to burn 12;000 pounds of additional fuel when it is clearly not needed.*If the dispatcher staffing is so short the individuals cannot properly flight plan and monitor the flights assigned to them then questions of both safety and economy should be asked and answered.*[our airline] recently spent millions of dollars training pilots; dispatchers and other personnel about the need and practice of saving fuel. The cost of burning 12;000 pounds of extra fuel is estimated to be approximately $3;500. Considering this unneeded expense; was the effectiveness of the Operational Efficiency Course (OET) course achieved and is there truly a commitment by Upper United Management to implement the needed processes and manpower required to achieve the fuel savings goals?To summarize:I personally realize it is often difficult to achieve optimum results in every operation; flight and effort made. However; it is unacceptable to accept such obvious inefficiencies when they can be avoided. The members of my crew expressed their feelings of antipathy as we left EDDF operations with a flight plan; which needlessly burned 12;000 extra pounds of fuel; and that may be the real cost of today's flight.

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.