Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Total 9213; Flight Crew Type 1800
Workload
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
General None Reported / Taken
Company Policy; Procedure
The flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ was dispatched under our new fuel management program. The 1 hour and 25 minute flight was dispatched with planned fuel of 5830 lbs. The FO and I both noticed and mentioned that the landing fuel numbers were very low for our standard operation. The NAV Log section of the release showed 1;829 lbs. which is planned fuel minus taxi and fuel burn. But the fuel calculation section showed 1;660 lbs. This concerned both the FO and I; as such a long flight with very little fuel to be landing with. We both discussed that the airplane was [under] fueled by at least 200 lbs. Therefore we both felt landing with 2;000 lbs. or worst case scenario 1;800 lbs. was low but a safer and acceptable number. The performance manual shows around 1;700 lbs. at 5;000 ft. is around 45 minutes of fuel. Knowing our fuel was tight; we did what we could to help conserve fuel by delaying the second engine start as long as possible; and we attempted a Flight Level Change climb by several and normal intermediate level off altitudes with only 7 miles in the opposite direction. We continued to monitor our fuel burn. Upon our initial descent; we noticed we had burned more than planned; but we had received a shortcut and still calculated landing with around 1;800 lbs. On a few turns before final; the right fuel gauge began to flash amber at us then continued to flash in and out as fuel moved around throughout the final approach. Upon landing; we had around 1;800 lbs. of fuel. I feel this margin of safety is extremely low for a safety conscious airline and program. The fuel management program should be providing us with more fuel not less fuel. We were [under] fueled and received no undue delays and were proactive in managing and conserving fuel. Our end result was landing with 1;800 lbs. of fuel. In a medium case scenario; if the airport shuts down for an aircraft emergency or anything else; a go around diversion to the closest company destination (ZZZ2 is 78 miles away); say 25 to 30 minutes at 8;000 ft. (1;100 lbs.); would have me landing with 400 lbs. of fuel and I would have had to make that decision immediately. ZZZ3 is the next closest at 117 miles. That is also if those stations both have personnel staffed to service the aircraft. While legal; and probably acceptable; this practice seems to create an unreasonable reduced margin of safety standards with the trade-off being cost savings. In addition; as a Check Airmen and experienced pilot; I have more wherewithal to be neurotically monitoring developing situations; and weather. I can see an average pilot easily being forced into a no-win situation or very unsafe situation with dire outcome.[We] detected and attempted to manage [the issue] upon review of the release and even with proactive measures; the aircraft still landed with an uncomfortable amount of fuel. [We] took proactive fuel burn reductions with no changes in landing fuel. The airline's new fuel management program and a lack of safety margins created by the program [were contributing factors].I suggest changing the standard practice of providing 45 minutes of cruise fuel from flight level altitudes and provide the crew with an accurate and manageable 45 minutes of fuel near 10;000 ft. which is where most people will need that extra fuel in the case of holding; delays; reroutes and diversions which more likely occur below the flight levels. Add fuel and increase the amount of minimum fuel required to be on the airplane for dispatch.
An air carrier Captain reported receiving a low fuel indication during final approach and suggested that the company's fuel management program did not allow enough fuel for adequate safety margins.