Narrative:

Original flight release fuel/burn was inaccurate. Upon arrival at the gate at ZZZ2; I checked the flight release. I called the dispatcher as I normally do; listened to the brief; and then discussed the fact that I was relatively new on the aircraft and not very comfortable landing with a fuel load of 14000 pounds. As it is; I'm not yet comfortable with any less than 17K; but I asked to plan for 17K arrival fuel. The dispatcher was not the one who created the release and it was mutually agreed that the fuel be changed from 121305 pounds to 125000 pounds. The original release called for taxi fuel of 1595 pounds. We pushed with 125000 pounds and took the runway with 123200 pounds (1800 pounds actual burned/taxi fuel). Obviously; all the fuel checks looked to be 3000-4000 pounds on the plus side until arrival in the ZZZ area. Approaching ABC1; we were vectored 25 mi further south and crossed the shore well south of ABC2. At ABC3; we were given a vector of 270 degrees and a speed of 210 KTS. We were turned back to the east; executed a long; slow downwind to a 20 mi final to runway xxr at ZZZ. We arrived at the gate with 13600 pounds. WX was scattered clouds and great visibility. ZZZ was overloaded with arriving traffic. Had I accepted the original fuel load; we would have had to return to the gate at ZZZ2 and if we had gotten airborne with the original fuel; we would have landed with about 10000 pounds. If we had to do a go around due to conflicting traffic landing on runway xy (as was almost the case); then we would have been in an emersituation. I understand the need to conserve; but until ZZZ can be more predictable on its handling of traffic in VFR WX; I have to consider past experience with ZZZ when I accept a fuel load. Obviously; this is causing a lot of attention. When I was going through training on the aircraft; one of my many questions was -- what arrival fuel was comfortable for other A330 pilots? I remember an instructor saying he was comfortable with 17K - 18K because too many times arriving at international destinations; there are considerable delays and 1 go around can consume a considerable amount. For a new captain on the airplane; he indicated that asking for 20K would be a good amount until I felt more comfortable with a lesser amount. Today's release was planned with the bare minimum of fuel. It did not consider ground delays at ZZZ2 (which we had); it did not consider off-course vectors from ZZZ2 to the tracks (which we had) and it did not account for excessive vectors at ZZZ. The low fuel event did not occur because the dispatcher and I agreed to increase the fuel. An event would have occurred had we left with the original planned fuel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NEW A330 CAPTAIN BELIEVES MORE PLANNED FUEL ON INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS IS NECESSARY TO ACCOUNT FOR OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS.

Narrative: ORIGINAL FLT RELEASE FUEL/BURN WAS INACCURATE. UPON ARR AT THE GATE AT ZZZ2; I CHKED THE FLT RELEASE. I CALLED THE DISPATCHER AS I NORMALLY DO; LISTENED TO THE BRIEF; AND THEN DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT I WAS RELATIVELY NEW ON THE ACFT AND NOT VERY COMFORTABLE LNDG WITH A FUEL LOAD OF 14000 LBS. AS IT IS; I'M NOT YET COMFORTABLE WITH ANY LESS THAN 17K; BUT I ASKED TO PLAN FOR 17K ARR FUEL. THE DISPATCHER WAS NOT THE ONE WHO CREATED THE RELEASE AND IT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT THE FUEL BE CHANGED FROM 121305 LBS TO 125000 LBS. THE ORIGINAL RELEASE CALLED FOR TAXI FUEL OF 1595 LBS. WE PUSHED WITH 125000 LBS AND TOOK THE RWY WITH 123200 LBS (1800 LBS ACTUAL BURNED/TAXI FUEL). OBVIOUSLY; ALL THE FUEL CHKS LOOKED TO BE 3000-4000 LBS ON THE PLUS SIDE UNTIL ARR IN THE ZZZ AREA. APCHING ABC1; WE WERE VECTORED 25 MI FURTHER S AND CROSSED THE SHORE WELL S OF ABC2. AT ABC3; WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR OF 270 DEGS AND A SPD OF 210 KTS. WE WERE TURNED BACK TO THE E; EXECUTED A LONG; SLOW DOWNWIND TO A 20 MI FINAL TO RWY XXR AT ZZZ. WE ARRIVED AT THE GATE WITH 13600 LBS. WX WAS SCATTERED CLOUDS AND GREAT VISIBILITY. ZZZ WAS OVERLOADED WITH ARRIVING TFC. HAD I ACCEPTED THE ORIGINAL FUEL LOAD; WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO RETURN TO THE GATE AT ZZZ2 AND IF WE HAD GOTTEN AIRBORNE WITH THE ORIGINAL FUEL; WE WOULD HAVE LANDED WITH ABOUT 10000 LBS. IF WE HAD TO DO A GAR DUE TO CONFLICTING TFC LNDG ON RWY XY (AS WAS ALMOST THE CASE); THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN AN EMERSITUATION. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO CONSERVE; BUT UNTIL ZZZ CAN BE MORE PREDICTABLE ON ITS HANDLING OF TFC IN VFR WX; I HAVE TO CONSIDER PAST EXPERIENCE WITH ZZZ WHEN I ACCEPT A FUEL LOAD. OBVIOUSLY; THIS IS CAUSING A LOT OF ATTN. WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH TRAINING ON THE ACFT; ONE OF MY MANY QUESTIONS WAS -- WHAT ARR FUEL WAS COMFORTABLE FOR OTHER A330 PLTS? I REMEMBER AN INSTRUCTOR SAYING HE WAS COMFORTABLE WITH 17K - 18K BECAUSE TOO MANY TIMES ARRIVING AT INTL DESTS; THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE DELAYS AND 1 GAR CAN CONSUME A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT. FOR A NEW CAPT ON THE AIRPLANE; HE INDICATED THAT ASKING FOR 20K WOULD BE A GOOD AMOUNT UNTIL I FELT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A LESSER AMOUNT. TODAY'S RELEASE WAS PLANNED WITH THE BARE MINIMUM OF FUEL. IT DID NOT CONSIDER GND DELAYS AT ZZZ2 (WHICH WE HAD); IT DID NOT CONSIDER OFF-COURSE VECTORS FROM ZZZ2 TO THE TRACKS (WHICH WE HAD) AND IT DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR EXCESSIVE VECTORS AT ZZZ. THE LOW FUEL EVENT DID NOT OCCUR BECAUSE THE DISPATCHER AND I AGREED TO INCREASE THE FUEL. AN EVENT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD WE LEFT WITH THE ORIGINAL PLANNED FUEL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.