Narrative:

We were at FL330. Approaching ZDV airspace, ZAB advised us to descend to FL290. I immediately asked if we could take a delaying vector, rather than descend into the cloud sat FL290, and encounter light to mod turbulence. The controller advised us to 'work it out' with ZDV, and gave us a frequency change. Upon switching over, we again requested to stay at FL330 and take a vector if necessary, rather than descend into the turbulence at FL290. Also, we were en route to cle, oh and our fuel economy would be better if we stayed higher. The controller issued a clearance to FL310, and asked us if we had received a descent clearance from the previous controller. We advised that he had told us to 'work it out' with the new controller, after we switched over to his frequency. The new controller advised that he had a military tanker (mlt B) overtaking us from behind, and that was why we were moved to a lower altitude. Also, ZDV would not approve a direct routing to avoid the altitude change. I asked the controller if the less maneuverable aircraft (us) had the right of way, inferring, that the overtaking military aircraft should have altered his altitude and/or course, as per the FAA regulations part 91. I didn't argue the point, but felt that it was very unnecessary to descend a civilian airliner into icing conditions and turbulence, when a delaying vector for each of us, may have solved the problem. In any case, doesn't the less maneuverable aircraft have the right of way? Some consistency in this type of situation, is needed by ATC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLT CREW UNHAPPY WITH DESCENT CLRNC GIVEN TO ACCOMMODATE A MIL ACFT ON MISSION FLT PLAN. THINKS ATC SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ACR PRIORITY ON ALT.

Narrative: WE WERE AT FL330. APCHING ZDV AIRSPACE, ZAB ADVISED US TO DSND TO FL290. I IMMEDIATELY ASKED IF WE COULD TAKE A DELAYING VECTOR, RATHER THAN DSND INTO THE CLOUD SAT FL290, AND ENCOUNTER LIGHT TO MOD TURBULENCE. THE CTLR ADVISED US TO 'WORK IT OUT' WITH ZDV, AND GAVE US A FREQ CHANGE. UPON SWITCHING OVER, WE AGAIN REQUESTED TO STAY AT FL330 AND TAKE A VECTOR IF NECESSARY, RATHER THAN DSND INTO THE TURBULENCE AT FL290. ALSO, WE WERE ENRTE TO CLE, OH AND OUR FUEL ECONOMY WOULD BE BETTER IF WE STAYED HIGHER. THE CTLR ISSUED A CLRNC TO FL310, AND ASKED US IF WE HAD RECEIVED A DSCNT CLRNC FROM THE PREVIOUS CTLR. WE ADVISED THAT HE HAD TOLD US TO 'WORK IT OUT' WITH THE NEW CTLR, AFTER WE SWITCHED OVER TO HIS FREQ. THE NEW CTLR ADVISED THAT HE HAD A MIL TANKER (MLT B) OVERTAKING US FROM BEHIND, AND THAT WAS WHY WE WERE MOVED TO A LOWER ALT. ALSO, ZDV WOULD NOT APPROVE A DIRECT ROUTING TO AVOID THE ALT CHANGE. I ASKED THE CTLR IF THE LESS MANEUVERABLE ACFT (US) HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, INFERRING, THAT THE OVERTAKING MIL ACFT SHOULD HAVE ALTERED HIS ALT AND/OR COURSE, AS PER THE FAA REGS PART 91. I DIDN'T ARGUE THE POINT, BUT FELT THAT IT WAS VERY UNNECESSARY TO DSND A CIVILIAN AIRLINER INTO ICING CONDITIONS AND TURBULENCE, WHEN A DELAYING VECTOR FOR EACH OF US, MAY HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM. IN ANY CASE, DOESN'T THE LESS MANEUVERABLE ACFT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY? SOME CONSISTENCY IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, IS NEEDED BY ATC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.