Narrative:

Once again when is the company going to look at our ft planning fuel procedures -- numbers. Look at the attached flight plan carefully and you tell me where the error is! Flight XXX taxied out single-engine. We got a flow delay to sfo so shut down the 1 engine. No engines running for 25 mins. Shut down on taxiway P short of taxiway west in ZZZ1. We started up 10 mins prior to departure time; took off; and climbed unhindered to FL320. We were 900 pounds above our takeoff minimum of 39.3. At leveloff we were 35.0. Flight plan said 35.3 (300 pounds low even with extra gas at takeoff). As the flight progressed fuel became lower and lower at each fix. We flew managed speed and step climbed to FL340 and 360 at the proper fixes. By the time we reached oal we were 1300 pounds lower than the flight plan. We did an idle descent from FL340 to a visual approach. No instrument approach or additional vectors. We landed 900-1000 pounds below our flight plan and that was taking off with more than takeoff minimum. Now you tell me why this is. Is it any wonder capts may want a little more fuel? 70-80% of coast to coast flts are this way. The figures used are just wrong. These are not new airplanes and more gas is consumed than planned for. Climb figures are in error. Step altitudes are not considered. And ATC stepdowns are not considered either. I was lucky on this flight. Any fog or a gear problem and would have gone to oakland. That's not the issue so much as wrong planning figures or aircraft specific fuel burns. I've turned in a few of these as soon as possible's and have heard nothing back.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 CAPT COMPLAINS THAT ON COAST TO COAST FLT'S 70-80% OF THE ACFT LAND 900-1;000 LBS OVER BURN EVEN USING THE MOST EFFICIENT PROFILES.

Narrative: ONCE AGAIN WHEN IS THE COMPANY GOING TO LOOK AT OUR FT PLANNING FUEL PROCS -- NUMBERS. LOOK AT THE ATTACHED FLT PLAN CAREFULLY AND YOU TELL ME WHERE THE ERROR IS! FLT XXX TAXIED OUT SINGLE-ENG. WE GOT A FLOW DELAY TO SFO SO SHUT DOWN THE 1 ENG. NO ENGS RUNNING FOR 25 MINS. SHUT DOWN ON TXWY P SHORT OF TXWY W IN ZZZ1. WE STARTED UP 10 MINS PRIOR TO DEP TIME; TOOK OFF; AND CLBED UNHINDERED TO FL320. WE WERE 900 LBS ABOVE OUR TKOF MINIMUM OF 39.3. AT LEVELOFF WE WERE 35.0. FLT PLAN SAID 35.3 (300 LBS LOW EVEN WITH EXTRA GAS AT TKOF). AS THE FLT PROGRESSED FUEL BECAME LOWER AND LOWER AT EACH FIX. WE FLEW MANAGED SPD AND STEP CLBED TO FL340 AND 360 AT THE PROPER FIXES. BY THE TIME WE REACHED OAL WE WERE 1300 LBS LOWER THAN THE FLT PLAN. WE DID AN IDLE DSCNT FROM FL340 TO A VISUAL APCH. NO INST APCH OR ADDITIONAL VECTORS. WE LANDED 900-1000 LBS BELOW OUR FLT PLAN AND THAT WAS TAKING OFF WITH MORE THAN TKOF MINIMUM. NOW YOU TELL ME WHY THIS IS. IS IT ANY WONDER CAPTS MAY WANT A LITTLE MORE FUEL? 70-80% OF COAST TO COAST FLTS ARE THIS WAY. THE FIGURES USED ARE JUST WRONG. THESE ARE NOT NEW AIRPLANES AND MORE GAS IS CONSUMED THAN PLANNED FOR. CLB FIGURES ARE IN ERROR. STEP ALTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED. AND ATC STEPDOWNS ARE NOT CONSIDERED EITHER. I WAS LUCKY ON THIS FLT. ANY FOG OR A GEAR PROB AND WOULD HAVE GONE TO OAKLAND. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE SO MUCH AS WRONG PLANNING FIGURES OR ACFT SPECIFIC FUEL BURNS. I'VE TURNED IN A FEW OF THESE ASAP'S AND HAVE HEARD NOTHING BACK.

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.