Narrative:

Early through our final descent upper ECAM reports in green color 'fob below 6600 pounds.' I took another look at my release that shows 'fuel remaining at destination 6.5 pounds/01.15 H.M'i am aware of all the effort that has been made to streamline our fuel loads; including how many go arounds have been performed in the simulator on these new 'streamlined' fuel loads; etc; etc. The goal is crystal clear - economics - saving money carrying less fuel; I got that. The fact is there is plenty of fuel to be saved if we had efficient ground operations. It seems that our very cheap contracts providing us inefficient service at some of our stations or bases are now responsible for fuel wasted away. The question is how do you justify the cheaper service with the added expense of fuel. It doesn't take an economist to figure out; at some point along the way; that the cheaper service will actually bring a more expensive operation. The fuel adjustments made are justifiable if within reasonable parameters. The danger of taking a purely technical approach as to research data in a simulator or rely on certain matrix takes the 'real' world and 'unforeseen' considerations to make the correct adjustments. At the end of the day a 'philosophical' approach seems to reign and it tends to be biased usually towards the economic considerations. Insult to injury; this economical initiative is now being thrown on the easiest target to control and manage: fuel loads *vs* improved ground operations that our current management seem cannot attain. I'm all for bringing an efficient and safe matrix of fuel uploads; however; when the aircraft informs you that there is something to be aware of regarding your present fuel load; I would say it must be considered. At some point engineers at airbus must have considered; under their 'philosophy;' that this is a point where the crew must be aware of a fuel condition. Me and other crews I've talked to have concerns about the number of this messages we've been seen recently. Maybe the matrix can be adjusted to consider and avoid such messages on our flights. It is appalling that management is unable to resolve the inefficiency on ground operations and is now throwing this in a safety sensitive environment.my flight today from was released to land in ZZZ with 6.5/01.15 H.M. We had to avoid a few storms departing. Also; the arrival into ZZZ has step downs on controller's request that begin about 180NM away from ZZZ. Arrived with 5.6 pounds in ZZZ; 900 pounds less than planned. Please note we were dispatched with an amount of fuel for arrival (6.5 pounds) that would have trigger the upper ECAM message anyway! (6.6 pounds.)what I'm simply saying is that I'm all for not carrying excess fuel; but that adjustments have to be reasonable so that all parameters are conformed to and satisfied including the aircraft's built-in messages that we don't need to see. Your current matrix is obviously not working. Also; more can be done to save fuel and seems management does not get it.at the end of the day is just one more babysitting element for captains to be responsible of: having to start watching and adjusting fuel loads to reasonable levels. This on top of babysitting mechanics that don't know what they are doing; mels that have errors; and passenger with issues that made it through the gate into the airplane. Oh; yes; and then we have to prepare; brief; and fly to our destination. Are we on the yellow into the red? The big picture is really concerning; this new extreme fuel management approach is doing all of us a disservice.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 Captain reported that his company's fuel dispatch protocol does not provide an adequate buffer for inflight exigencies.

Narrative: Early through our final descent upper ECAM reports in green color 'FOB BELOW 6600 LBS.' I took another look at my release that shows 'FUEL REMAINING AT DESTINATION 6.5 LBS/01.15 H.M'I am aware of all the effort that has been made to streamline our fuel loads; including how many go arounds have been performed in the simulator on these new 'streamlined' fuel loads; etc; etc. The goal is crystal clear - economics - saving money carrying less fuel; I got that. The fact is there is plenty of fuel to be saved if we had efficient ground operations. It seems that our very cheap contracts providing us inefficient service at some of our stations or bases are now responsible for fuel wasted away. The question is how do you justify the cheaper service with the added expense of fuel. It doesn't take an economist to figure out; at some point along the way; that the cheaper service will actually bring a more expensive operation. The fuel adjustments made are justifiable if within reasonable parameters. The danger of taking a purely technical approach as to research data in a simulator or rely on certain matrix takes the 'real' world and 'unforeseen' considerations to make the correct adjustments. At the end of the day a 'philosophical' approach seems to reign and it tends to be biased usually towards the economic considerations. Insult to injury; this economical initiative is now being thrown on the easiest target to control and manage: fuel loads *vs* improved ground operations that our current management seem cannot attain. I'm all for bringing an efficient and safe matrix of fuel uploads; however; when the aircraft informs you that there is something to be aware of regarding your present fuel load; I would say it must be considered. At some point engineers at Airbus must have considered; under their 'philosophy;' that this is a point where the crew must be aware of a fuel condition. Me and other crews I've talked to have concerns about the number of this messages we've been seen recently. Maybe the matrix can be adjusted to consider and avoid such messages on our flights. It is appalling that management is unable to resolve the inefficiency on ground operations and is now throwing this in a safety sensitive environment.My flight today from was released to land in ZZZ with 6.5/01.15 H.M. We had to avoid a few storms departing. Also; the arrival into ZZZ has step downs on controller's request that begin about 180NM away from ZZZ. Arrived with 5.6 LBS in ZZZ; 900 LBS less than planned. Please note we were dispatched with an amount of fuel for arrival (6.5 LBS) that would have trigger the upper ECAM message anyway! (6.6 LBS.)What I'm simply saying is that I'm all for not carrying excess fuel; but that adjustments have to be reasonable so that all parameters are conformed to and satisfied including the aircraft's built-in messages that we don't need to see. Your current matrix is obviously not working. Also; more can be done to save fuel and seems management does not get it.At the end of the day is just one more babysitting element for Captains to be responsible of: having to start watching and adjusting fuel loads to reasonable levels. This on top of babysitting mechanics that don't know what they are doing; MELs that have errors; and passenger with issues that made it through the gate into the airplane. Oh; yes; and then we have to prepare; brief; and fly to our destination. Are we on the yellow into the red? The big picture is really concerning; this new extreme fuel management approach is doing all of us a disservice.

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.