Narrative:

Our flight encountered stronger than forecast winds. We had been dispatched with zero contingency fuel and only 33 pounds of 'extra fuel' for a total of 5;700 pounds. At brake release for takeoff the total was 5;650 pounds. At top of climb; fuel was plus 35 pounds from planned with 4;100 pounds as we approached joinn.the flight was flown 250 KIAS to 10;000 MSL and profile cost index speed of 263 KTS to FL300. Over avery with 70 KT headwinds; fuel was 100 pounds less than planned due to the greater headwinds. On arrival the downwind fixes were not flight planned for fuel and burn off from worff to atl planned at only 300 pounds required 450. Atlanta center cleared us to FL240; we requested discretion for fuel but they were unable. Additionally we were asked to maintain 290 KTS and later increased to 310 KTS in the descent as we were number two in the pack.fuel on landing was forecast to be 2;000 pounds (and; predictably; lower with a 20 NM final into atl. We asked center for relief on the airspeed which helped but were then given dirty at 14;000 and 320 KTS. Approach first assigned runway 8L then subsequently changed it to runway 10 from a north transition. We were now forecast to land with reserve fuel or less. We declared minimum fuel and requested 8R. They did not seem to understand minimum fuel and stated; 'we'll see what we can do.' we landed with 1;940 pounds at touchdown; 300 pounds below planned arrival fuel.the company is flight planning on razor thin fuel margins; particularly into large airports. I have seen planned landing fuels as low as 1;900 pounds into major hubs. This is becoming the norm with both of our 'mother' airlines. If the company plans razor thin margins; flight planning must be more accurate. An increase in forecast headwinds and a change in runways should not cause minimum fuel situations. Captain had been on property for 14 1/2 years and first officer for 6 1/2. Furthermore; downwind fixes were not added to the furthest fix of wotba. Carrying fuel costs money; but the ATC system is dynamic and with only 33 extra pounds of fuel; there is no room for any contingency; no flexibility in the system. We're flying into the biggest; busiest airports and flight planning like we're landing in podunk. Had this not been an experienced crew; perhaps the minimum fuel call would not have been made.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ-200 flight crew used their flight--compromised on arrival by less than required remaining fuel on board--as an example to address concerns about their company's penurious standards with respect to fuel required at departure; planning only for best case scenarios and making little or no allowance for routine and/or predictable contingencies.

Narrative: Our flight encountered stronger than forecast winds. We had been dispatched with zero contingency fuel and only 33 LBS of 'extra fuel' for a total of 5;700 LBS. At brake release for takeoff the total was 5;650 LBS. At Top of Climb; fuel was plus 35 LBS from planned with 4;100 LBS as we approached JOINN.The flight was flown 250 KIAS to 10;000 MSL and profile cost index speed of 263 KTS to FL300. Over AVERY with 70 KT headwinds; fuel was 100 LBS less than planned due to the greater headwinds. On arrival the downwind fixes were not flight planned for fuel and burn off from WORFF to ATL planned at only 300 LBS required 450. Atlanta Center cleared us to FL240; we requested discretion for fuel but they were unable. Additionally we were asked to maintain 290 KTS and later increased to 310 KTS in the descent as we were number two in the pack.Fuel on landing was forecast to be 2;000 LBS (and; predictably; lower with a 20 NM final into ATL. We asked Center for relief on the airspeed which helped but were then given DIRTY at 14;000 and 320 KTS. Approach first assigned Runway 8L then subsequently changed it to Runway 10 from a north transition. We were now forecast to land with reserve fuel or less. We declared minimum fuel and requested 8R. They did not seem to understand minimum fuel and stated; 'We'll see what we can do.' We landed with 1;940 LBS at touchdown; 300 LBS below planned arrival fuel.The company is flight planning on razor thin fuel margins; particularly into large airports. I have seen planned landing fuels as low as 1;900 LBS into major hubs. This is becoming the norm with both of our 'mother' airlines. If the company plans razor thin margins; flight planning MUST be more accurate. An increase in forecast headwinds and a change in runways should NOT cause minimum fuel situations. Captain had been on property for 14 1/2 years and First Officer for 6 1/2. Furthermore; downwind fixes were not added to the furthest fix of WOTBA. Carrying fuel costs money; but the ATC system is dynamic and with only 33 extra LBS of fuel; there is no room for any contingency; no flexibility in the system. We're flying into the biggest; busiest airports and flight planning like we're landing in Podunk. Had this not been an experienced crew; perhaps the minimum fuel call would not have been made.

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.