Narrative:

When given a clearance option to either descend to FL280 and proceed dkk or accept off course vector (20 degrees left) for 18 mins, captain chose to not accept either option because of projected fuel burn. Additional conversation regarding fuel and phone numbers passed between ATC and the captain. Flight proceeded to lax landing with 6000 pounds of fuel. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter first officer says that they were at the end of a long 4 day trip and patience was running short. Throughout the course of the 4 days, reporter says they had many diversions, etc, issued by ATC and it appeared to the flight crew that ATC was unnecessarily controling traffic to make it the easiest for them without flight crew consideration. Consequently, when ATC gave options to the flight crew, the captain refused both. Reporter says that ATC never issued them a clearance, just options. As a result, ATC had to move other traffic out of the reporter aircraft's way. Reporter first officer says that the captain was wrong in implying that they were short of fuel as a reason for not accepting ATC options. They landed with 6000 pounds of fuel which was more than adequate. The FAA contacted reporter's company chief pilot who, in turn, contacted the captain. Apparently nothing further occurred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC FLC CONFLICT. ARTCC RADAR CTLR GAVE 2 OPTIONS TO FLC FOR TFC AVOIDANCE. CAPT REFUSED BOTH OPTIONS AND USED FUEL CONSIDERATIONS AS THE REASON. ATC HAD TO ALTER OTHER ACFTS' COURSES ALTS AND SUBMITTED RPT TO THE FAA WHO CONDUCTED FOLLOWUP WITH CAPT'S CHIEF PLT.

Narrative: WHEN GIVEN A CLRNC OPTION TO EITHER DSND TO FL280 AND PROCEED DKK OR ACCEPT OFF COURSE VECTOR (20 DEGS L) FOR 18 MINS, CAPT CHOSE TO NOT ACCEPT EITHER OPTION BECAUSE OF PROJECTED FUEL BURN. ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION REGARDING FUEL AND PHONE NUMBERS PASSED BTWN ATC AND THE CAPT. FLT PROCEEDED TO LAX LNDG WITH 6000 LBS OF FUEL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR FO SAYS THAT THEY WERE AT THE END OF A LONG 4 DAY TRIP AND PATIENCE WAS RUNNING SHORT. THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE 4 DAYS, RPTR SAYS THEY HAD MANY DIVERSIONS, ETC, ISSUED BY ATC AND IT APPEARED TO THE FLC THAT ATC WAS UNNECESSARILY CTLING TFC TO MAKE IT THE EASIEST FOR THEM WITHOUT FLC CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN ATC GAVE OPTIONS TO THE FLC, THE CAPT REFUSED BOTH. RPTR SAYS THAT ATC NEVER ISSUED THEM A CLRNC, JUST OPTIONS. AS A RESULT, ATC HAD TO MOVE OTHER TFC OUT OF THE RPTR ACFT'S WAY. RPTR FO SAYS THAT THE CAPT WAS WRONG IN IMPLYING THAT THEY WERE SHORT OF FUEL AS A REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING ATC OPTIONS. THEY LANDED WITH 6000 LBS OF FUEL WHICH WAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE. THE FAA CONTACTED RPTR'S COMPANY CHIEF PLT WHO, IN TURN, CONTACTED THE CAPT. APPARENTLY NOTHING FURTHER OCCURRED.

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.