Narrative:

In recent weeks; I have noticed a significant reduction in planned fuel loads. This was particularly apparent on [this] flight where remf was planned 4636; or 1:07. This extremely low fuel figure included what the dispatcher said in the flight plan comments; 'xtra fuel for route.' I asked the dispatcher where this 'extra' fuel was located because I didn't see it in the fuel ladder and she referenced it as the 7 minutes over 60 minute policy fuel for remf. I recognize that this flight was an [aircraft] with a low ZFW (zero-fuel weight) on a day forecasted to have good weather across the route. I also recognize efficiency is a major tenet of the [company] policy; which is just one of many reasons I utilize single engine taxi on a high percentage of my flights. However; such a low fuel load leaves virtually no margin for error to deal with even a minor routing change or in flight disruption or issue let alone a lengthy maintenance issue or outside event such as an accident on the airfield. Furthermore; even if the flight proceeds perfectly as planned; the low fuel figure would likely create an unnecessary distraction for the crew by requiring greater than normal attention to fuel progress. With safety as the supposed top priority for [the company policy] and the cost of an extra 1000 lbs of fuel; as an example; listed as xx dollars on the [flight plan]; why would [the company] want to take that risk or place that burden on the crew? Why should the captain be the one forced to say no; this does not provide adequate buffer for our flight so I'll add fuel? Isn't the cost of a small buffer worth the risk of an unnecessary diversion whose fuel alone would be much more than xx dollars and whose hidden costs from missed passenger and crew connections would be even greater still?yes; we must be efficient and seek gains where possible. It is sound business sense to do so. But we should also recognize the hidden costs and pressures to safety such an extreme adherence to 'policy fuel' creates in moments like these.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported that the planned fuel load for a flight did not provide an adequate buffer for unforeseen situations that may arise.

Narrative: In recent weeks; I have noticed a significant reduction in planned fuel loads. This was particularly apparent on [this] flight where REMF was planned 4636; or 1:07. This extremely low fuel figure included what the Dispatcher said in the flight plan comments; 'XTRA FUEL FOR RTE.' I asked the Dispatcher where this 'extra' fuel was located because I didn't see it in the fuel ladder and she referenced it as the 7 minutes over 60 minute policy fuel for REMF. I recognize that this flight was an [aircraft] with a low ZFW (Zero-Fuel Weight) on a day forecasted to have good weather across the route. I also recognize efficiency is a major tenet of the [company] policy; which is just one of many reasons I utilize single engine taxi on a high percentage of my flights. However; such a low fuel load leaves virtually no margin for error to deal with even a minor routing change or in flight disruption or issue let alone a lengthy maintenance issue or outside event such as an accident on the airfield. Furthermore; even if the flight proceeds perfectly as planned; the low fuel figure would likely create an unnecessary distraction for the crew by requiring greater than normal attention to fuel progress. With safety as the supposed top priority for [the company policy] and the cost of an extra 1000 lbs of fuel; as an example; listed as XX dollars on the [Flight Plan]; why would [the Company] want to take that risk or place that burden on the crew? Why should the Captain be the one forced to say no; this does not provide adequate buffer for our flight so I'll add fuel? Isn't the cost of a small buffer worth the risk of an unnecessary diversion whose fuel alone would be much more than XX dollars and whose hidden costs from missed passenger and crew connections would be even greater still?Yes; we must be efficient and seek gains where possible. It is sound business sense to do so. But we should also recognize the hidden costs and pressures to safety such an extreme adherence to 'policy fuel' creates in moments like these.

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.