Narrative:

Looking at paperwork shows a FOD [fuel on deck] value of 6.4 with acf calculations etc. Etc. Flight planned at FL360. Noticed turbulence over rockies and it was obvious that at some point we would have to descend below planned fl. Flew above planned at FL380 to save gas and added 1.5 then had to descend to FL320 and then FL300 for ATC requirements 1 hour out. Given this we landed with only 6.2. Now; figuring the savings at 380 vs. 360 was about 800 pounds for several hours if we stayed at 360 would have landed with 5.4 then less the 1.5 I added would have been 3.9 thousand pounds; unacceptable.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain laments the low fuel loads that the company flight planning software routinely provides and offers an example.

Narrative: Looking at paperwork shows a FOD [fuel on deck] value of 6.4 with ACF calculations etc. etc. Flight planned at FL360. Noticed turbulence over Rockies and it was obvious that at some point we would have to descend below planned FL. Flew ABOVE planned at FL380 to save gas and added 1.5 then had to descend to FL320 and then FL300 for ATC requirements 1 hour out. Given this we landed with only 6.2. Now; figuring the savings at 380 vs. 360 was about 800 LBS for several hours if we stayed at 360 would have landed with 5.4 then less the 1.5 I added would have been 3.9 thousand pounds; unacceptable.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.