Narrative:

During my preflight review of the flight plan I noted a planned arrival fuel of 2700 pounds. The fuel planning only included 500 pounds of add fuel and 500 pounds of hold fuel. This was not enough fuel to get to ZZZ1 during rush hour. I had already diverted several other times in the past few months for the same perfect world fueling that dispatch insists on placing on board our aircraft. I called up dispatch and requested more fuel. They agreed and placed under captain add of 700 pounds and stated in the remarks that the captain requested more fuel. I have been forced to call dispatch time and time again insisting on more fuel and when I ask why they are min running our fuel loads they state that it is the company dispatch fueling policy that they must comply with or they will be questioned on the reason behind the additional fuel. The fact that when we got within 100 miles of ZZZ1 that day we had to hold 30 minutes and had I not insisted on the additional 700 pounds of fuel we would have been placed in an immediate diversion situation that would have had us arrive at our alternate with min fuel; that was not selected because of the assumption by our dispatch that because the weather is VMC that you do not have to hold nor do you need an alternate. The fact that I had to hold 30 minutes on a clear and a million VFR day validates my disagreement with our carrier's perfect world dispatch fuel load policy. My fellow colleagues are diverting for the same reasons; all caused by the min fuel policy which is clearly being motivated by economic conditions; not common sense and experience. This event occurred because of the unrealistic fueling policy of my air carrier. It is not consistent with the realities of the perpetually congested airspace system. It also occurred because whether the airlines are willing to admit it or not their decisions and policies on aircraft fuel loads are based on the economics of the industry; not the realities of the antiquated ATC system that demands more fuel as a result of the airspace saturation causing extensive holds and delays. Mandate that all flights going into ZZZ; ZZZ1; and ZZZ2 be given a designated alternate regardless of the weather conditions; plus additional hold fuel. This will address the consistent holding required in order to gain access to these airports. In the event that the hold times are in excess of our hold fuel load then divert as required to the planned designated airport. This way you're not flying around hoping you do not have to declare emergency fuel because of poor flight and fuel planning.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EMB145 PLT DISCUSSES DIVERSIONS WHEN FLYING INTO ZZZ; ZZZ1; AND ZZZ2 WITH MINIMUM FUEL AND NO DESIGNATED ALTERNATE.

Narrative: DURING MY PREFLT REVIEW OF THE FLT PLAN I NOTED A PLANNED ARR FUEL OF 2700 LBS. THE FUEL PLANNING ONLY INCLUDED 500 LBS OF ADD FUEL AND 500 LBS OF HOLD FUEL. THIS WAS NOT ENOUGH FUEL TO GET TO ZZZ1 DURING RUSH HOUR. I HAD ALREADY DIVERTED SEVERAL OTHER TIMES IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS FOR THE SAME PERFECT WORLD FUELING THAT DISPATCH INSISTS ON PLACING ON BOARD OUR ACFT. I CALLED UP DISPATCH AND REQUESTED MORE FUEL. THEY AGREED AND PLACED UNDER CAPT ADD OF 700 LBS AND STATED IN THE REMARKS THAT THE CAPT REQUESTED MORE FUEL. I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CALL DISPATCH TIME AND TIME AGAIN INSISTING ON MORE FUEL AND WHEN I ASK WHY THEY ARE MIN RUNNING OUR FUEL LOADS THEY STATE THAT IT IS THE COMPANY DISPATCH FUELING POLICY THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH OR THEY WILL BE QUESTIONED ON THE REASON BEHIND THE ADDITIONAL FUEL. THE FACT THAT WHEN WE GOT WITHIN 100 MILES OF ZZZ1 THAT DAY WE HAD TO HOLD 30 MINUTES AND HAD I NOT INSISTED ON THE ADDITIONAL 700 LBS OF FUEL WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN AN IMMEDIATE DIVERSION SITUATION THAT WOULD HAVE HAD US ARRIVE AT OUR ALTERNATE WITH MIN FUEL; THAT WAS NOT SELECTED BECAUSE OF THE ASSUMPTION BY OUR DISPATCH THAT BECAUSE THE WEATHER IS VMC THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HOLD NOR DO YOU NEED AN ALTERNATE. THE FACT THAT I HAD TO HOLD 30 MINUTES ON A CLR AND A MILLION VFR DAY VALIDATES MY DISAGREEMENT WITH OUR CARRIER'S PERFECT WORLD DISPATCH FUEL LOAD POLICY. MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES ARE DIVERTING FOR THE SAME REASONS; ALL CAUSED BY THE MIN FUEL POLICY WHICH IS CLRLY BEING MOTIVATED BY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS; NOT COMMON SENSE AND EXPERIENCE. THIS EVENT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE UNREALISTIC FUELING POLICY OF MY ACR. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REALITIES OF THE PERPETUALLY CONGESTED AIRSPACE SYSTEM. IT ALSO OCCURRED BECAUSE WHETHER THE AIRLINES ARE WILLING TO ADMIT IT OR NOT THEIR DECISIONS AND POLICIES ON ACFT FUEL LOADS ARE BASED ON THE ECONOMICS OF THE INDUSTRY; NOT THE REALITIES OF THE ANTIQUATED ATC SYSTEM THAT DEMANDS MORE FUEL AS A RESULT OF THE AIRSPACE SATURATION CAUSING EXTENSIVE HOLDS AND DELAYS. MANDATE THAT ALL FLIGHTS GOING INTO ZZZ; ZZZ1; AND ZZZ2 BE GIVEN A DESIGNATED ALTERNATE REGARDLESS OF THE WEATHER CONDITIONS; PLUS ADDITIONAL HOLD FUEL. THIS WILL ADDRESS THE CONSISTENT HOLDING REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS TO THESE ARPTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE HOLD TIMES ARE IN EXCESS OF OUR HOLD FUEL LOAD THEN DIVERT AS REQUIRED TO THE PLANNED DESIGNATED ARPT. THIS WAY YOU'RE NOT FLYING AROUND HOPING YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DECLARE EMER FUEL BECAUSE OF POOR FLT AND FUEL PLANNING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 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.