Narrative:

During cruise and prior to receiving our STAR clearance; a thorough arrival briefing was accomplished which highlighted standard items such as but not limited to airport weather; arrival delays; preferred runway; fuel; runway conditions; landing/go around performance; runway exit plan; etc. Prior to descent; ATC assigned the RNAV arrival with the shortest runway at the airport. Given the current and forecast weather conditions at the airport (rain/wind); the crew agreed (pre-briefed) that landing on the longer; parallel runway would be the wiser; safer choice. After receiving the arrival clearance and runway assignment; we advised ATC that we would 'require' the longer runway for 'operational' reasons. To use that runway; we were told we would be subject to a delay of 6 minutes. We reported that a six minute delay would be acceptable; but shortly after; the controller issued a landing time which actually doubled the delay to twelve to thirteen minutes! We queried the inconsistency and became highly suspicious of the ATC delay times being given. After a brief crew discussion; we reported back that we could not accept the extra delay due to fuel. ATC then advised us that if we still wanted the longer runway avoiding delay; we were required to declare minimum fuel which in subsequent transmissions with this controller evolved into a requirement for a pan; pan; pan and then ultimately a [low] fuel declaration. As a crew; we solidly did not agree with the controller's assessment for the use of the extreme declarations; but because we were getting busy and closer in to the airport; we did not have time to continue sorting out the differences with the controller while airborne. Ultimately; we concluded; that if the declaration is what ATC truly needed from us to land on the 'long' runway; then we would comply and make the declaration. This particular aircraft is a high burner. I flew it recently and our fuel score was down approximately 3;500 pounds at the end of that flight. Over the course of this flight; our fuel also trended negative nearly as much as the previous flight; (same aircraft and same leg). Hours in advance of our arrival; the captain and I discussed and coordinated with dispatch all concerns and possible strategies regarding the negative fuel trend; arrival delays; diversion options; re-dispatch; as well as ensuring ATC would be in the loop with our tight fuel status upon arrival. Also; while on break; the relief crew continued to work in the same vein to ensure the safe; professional; and successful conclusion of our flight and mission. The flight landed safely without incident and parked at the gate with 14;000 pounds fuel remaining.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B787 flight crew reported fuel concern enroute to YSSY was exacerbated when ATC required a declaration of minimum fuel in order to avoid a delay.

Narrative: During cruise and prior to receiving our STAR clearance; a thorough arrival briefing was accomplished which highlighted standard items such as but not limited to airport weather; arrival delays; preferred runway; fuel; runway conditions; landing/go around performance; runway exit plan; etc. Prior to descent; ATC assigned the RNAV arrival with the shortest runway at the airport. Given the current and forecast weather conditions at the airport (rain/wind); the crew agreed (pre-briefed) that landing on the longer; parallel runway would be the wiser; safer choice. After receiving the arrival clearance and runway assignment; we advised ATC that we would 'require' the longer runway for 'operational' reasons. To use that runway; we were told we would be subject to a delay of 6 minutes. We reported that a six minute delay would be acceptable; but shortly after; the controller issued a landing time which actually doubled the delay to twelve to thirteen minutes! We queried the inconsistency and became highly suspicious of the ATC delay times being given. After a brief crew discussion; we reported back that we could not accept the extra delay due to fuel. ATC then advised us that if we still wanted the longer runway avoiding delay; we were required to declare minimum fuel which in subsequent transmissions with this controller evolved into a requirement for a Pan; Pan; Pan and then ultimately a [low] fuel declaration. As a crew; we solidly did not agree with the controller's assessment for the use of the extreme declarations; but because we were getting busy and closer in to the airport; we did not have time to continue sorting out the differences with the controller while airborne. Ultimately; we concluded; that if the declaration is what ATC truly needed from us to land on the 'long' runway; then we would comply and make the declaration. This particular aircraft is a high burner. I flew it recently and our fuel score was down approximately 3;500 pounds at the end of that flight. Over the course of this flight; our fuel also trended negative nearly as much as the previous flight; (same aircraft and same leg). Hours in advance of our arrival; the Captain and I discussed and coordinated with Dispatch all concerns and possible strategies regarding the negative fuel trend; arrival delays; diversion options; re-dispatch; as well as ensuring ATC would be in the loop with our tight fuel status upon arrival. Also; while on break; the relief crew continued to work in the same vein to ensure the safe; professional; and successful conclusion of our flight and mission. The flight landed safely without incident and parked at the gate with 14;000 pounds fuel remaining.

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.