Narrative:

Dispatchers should follow the company's own fuel policy pilot read file which reads: 'where a disagreement exists on the necessity of adding fuel; we will err on the side of caution and use the most conservative approach.' chief pilots should reconsider the practice of calling pilots to notify them of an investigation right before they are about to operate an aircraft. Maybe an email or phone call after the pilot duties off from their trip might be a better option. Upon checking the ofp (operational flight program) and the weather radar; I decided to ask dispatch for additional fuel. I noticed that the fuel price in at our departure was lower than the fuel prices at our destination. The tanker savings indicated '$0/1000LBS' on the paperwork. Essentially indicating that the cost of carrying any additional fuel is offset by the cheaper fuel at the departure airport. After reviewing the fuel pricing information on the ofp I concluded that adding extra fuel for more flexibility in deviations and ATC reroutes would be a zero cost insurance policy to the company.after requesting an additional 3;000 pounds via ACARS; the dispatcher responded that 3;000 pounds was 'excessive' and denied my request. I decided to give him a call and speak with him personally. He disagreed with my assessment and assured me that the flight plan manager software took into account the cost of the following flight. I knew this wasn't always the case since the dispatcher had to manually add the tanker fuel two days before on the same route. This is consistent with our fom (flight operations manual) which indicates that auto-tanker will only occur if the next segment has an ETD within 4 hours. Our next segment ETD was beyond the 4 hour mark. The dispatcher eventually granted my request; but suggested I needed to speak to a chief pilot.the issue of whether or not the added fuel saved the company any money is irrelevant in regards to safety. However; the response from dispatch and the threatening phone call I received from the ZZZ1 chief pilot less than 5 minutes before pushback is cause of major concern. I felt like my PIC authority had been hijacked by an accounting department within our operations. More concerning was the fact that I had a difficult time focusing on the safe operation of our flight after having my job threatened by my supervisor just minutes before I was to release the parking brake.my chief pilot knew I was about to push back from the gate as he asked if I had actually added the 3;000 pounds confirming that I had added the extra fuel he notified me that my decision to add fuel would be investigated. I spent the next 3 hours actively trying to shift my mind back into the task of safely operating my aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier pilot reported their initial request for extra fuel was denied by Dispatch which was not in accordance with Company Policy.

Narrative: Dispatchers should follow the company's own Fuel Policy pilot read file which reads: 'Where a disagreement exists on the necessity of adding fuel; we will err on the side of caution and use the most conservative approach.' Chief pilots should reconsider the practice of calling pilots to notify them of an investigation right before they are about to operate an aircraft. Maybe an email or phone call after the pilot duties off from their trip might be a better option. Upon checking the OFP (Operational Flight Program) and the weather radar; I decided to ask Dispatch for additional fuel. I noticed that the fuel price in at our departure was lower than the fuel prices at our destination. The tanker savings indicated '$0/1000LBS' on the paperwork. Essentially indicating that the cost of carrying any additional fuel is offset by the cheaper fuel at the departure airport. After reviewing the fuel pricing information on the OFP I concluded that adding extra fuel for more flexibility in deviations and ATC reroutes would be a zero cost insurance policy to the company.After requesting an additional 3;000 pounds via ACARS; the dispatcher responded that 3;000 pounds was 'excessive' and denied my request. I decided to give him a call and speak with him personally. He disagreed with my assessment and assured me that the Flight Plan Manager software took into account the cost of the following flight. I knew this wasn't always the case since the Dispatcher had to manually add the tanker fuel two days before on the same route. This is consistent with our FOM (Flight Operations Manual) which indicates that auto-tanker will only occur if the next segment has an ETD within 4 hours. Our next segment ETD was beyond the 4 hour mark. The Dispatcher eventually granted my request; but suggested I needed to speak to a Chief Pilot.The issue of whether or not the added fuel saved the company any money is irrelevant in regards to safety. However; the response from dispatch and the threatening phone call I received from the ZZZ1 Chief Pilot less than 5 minutes before pushback is cause of major concern. I felt like my PIC authority had been hijacked by an accounting department within our operations. More concerning was the fact that I had a difficult time focusing on the safe operation of our flight after having my job threatened by my supervisor just minutes before I was to release the parking brake.My Chief Pilot knew I was about to push back from the gate as he asked if I had actually added the 3;000 pounds confirming that I had added the extra fuel he notified me that my decision to add fuel would be investigated. I spent the next 3 hours actively trying to shift my mind back into the task of safely operating my aircraft.

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.