Narrative:

Our arrival fuel was planned for 4;793 lbs; including 1;731 lbs extra for altitude flexibility. I called the dispatcher and asked if; in expecting to possibly use this extra 1;731 lbs; he was ok with us actually landing with 3;062 lbs? He said; 'yes.' I informed him that in all my years as an A320 captain I had never; ever seen a landing fuel anywhere near this number and he informed me that he was a probationary dispatcher and had to follow policy. It was simply policy.... Accident[s] usually occur through a series of steps; any one of which; if avoided; breaks the chain and prevents the accident from happening. 3;062 lbs of landing fuel gives the crew no time to say; fix a gear problem discovered at the outer marker. It allows for no possibility of a minor reroute or landing runway change; should there be even the most minor mechanical after taxi out; a return to the gate; for refueling would be required. All in all; the idea that we would plan for a flight landing with the far minimum is ludicrous.... My point is this: I am an experienced captain with a natural distrust of the potentially hazardous environment within which I operate. I will not let a decision like this back me into a corner by rubber stamping the dispatcher's decision because it is 'policy.' a different; less discerning mind; may well simply agree. We now have two steps towards disaster.... So let's not allow the first step of the error chain to exist. I added 3;000 lbs and burned 400 lbs under flight plan with all the safety margins intact. 6;000 lbs of landing fuel allows for a normal far landing fuel of 45 minutes flight time; contingencies that are common and normal; and/or an abnormality at the end of the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain questioned the safety margin allowed by the Company's fuel reserve policy.

Narrative: Our arrival fuel was planned for 4;793 lbs; including 1;731 lbs extra for altitude flexibility. I called the Dispatcher and asked if; in expecting to possibly use this extra 1;731 lbs; he was OK with us actually landing with 3;062 lbs? He said; 'Yes.' I informed him that in all my years as an A320 Captain I had never; ever seen a landing fuel anywhere near this number and he informed me that he was a probationary dispatcher and had to follow policy. It was simply policy.... Accident[s] usually occur through a series of steps; any one of which; if avoided; breaks the chain and prevents the accident from happening. 3;062 lbs of landing fuel gives the crew no time to say; fix a gear problem discovered at the outer marker. It allows for no possibility of a minor reroute or landing runway change; should there be even the most minor mechanical after taxi out; a return to the gate; for refueling would be required. All in all; the idea that we would plan for a flight landing with the FAR minimum is ludicrous.... My point is this: I am an experienced Captain with a natural distrust of the potentially hazardous environment within which I operate. I will not let a decision like this back me into a corner by rubber stamping the Dispatcher's decision because it is 'policy.' A different; less discerning mind; may well simply agree. We now have two steps towards disaster.... So let's not allow the first step of the error chain to exist. I added 3;000 lbs and burned 400 lbs under flight plan with all the safety margins intact. 6;000 lbs of landing fuel allows for a normal FAR landing fuel of 45 minutes flight time; contingencies that are common and normal; and/or an abnormality at the end of the flight.

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.