I would hope any new Delta captain isn't also a new pilot. You should be able to think critically before you make it to the interview here. Using NYC as an example is not representative. 99% of our flights are not in airspace as congested as NYC. Maybe you didn't actually read my comment, but I said, START with the FAR 45 minutes of reserve, and then add for the situation. If you are going to NYC, then it will take 30 minutes of fuel to get to another NYC airport. And if that doesn't work, be ready to go to ABE.

I hope that new captains here decide to actually think about fuel planning rather than blindly go off a number they heard in training with zero context placed around it. Otherwise, you might end up doing a needless divert because, after years of treating 6.0, 5.0, or whatever conservative number some random instructor told you, you started thinking that THAT number was actually minimum fuel. There was an ASAP where the crew declared emergency fuel but somehow landed with more than 45 minutes of fuel.

Let me ask you this HK, would you takeoff if the WDR said your takeoff limit weight was your current weight?

 

NYC is an excellent example of where you thesis falls apart. I can also say the same for LAX, SEA, MSP, ATL and DTW. I've seen it go sideways at all of those places.

Your (that's collectively for the group not you in particular) instructors have data on it all. They are in the meetings, they see the trends and whats going on out there. They are not making these numbers up. Also, your statement about "all are pilots" yes, they are. But their situational awareness and their reserve of aviation knowledge is lacking. Not their fault, many just haven't been flying high performance jet aricraft in a demanding operation for long. HINT: There's a reason why we went to continuous LOSA. There's a reason we had our LCAs out there for 2 months riding along with crews. The data we are seeing on this end is quite shocking for an operaiton our size with "qualified" pilots. And I'll tell you we have the metrics on experience of the crews invovled and it is solidly in a certain age/years of experience grouping.

To your last, would you?

 

No it doesn't. Again. START with 45 minutes and add for the conditions. Is there convective activity over all of NYC, or just JFK? If it's just JFK, than EWR wouldn't be that hard to get into. And if all 3 major NYC airports are busy, you have BDL, SWF, and ABE. I was based in NYC for years and never had an issue getting to another airport even when the TRACON was down to primary radar during a line of thunderstorms. The same is true for all the other hubs. There are plenty of secondary airports we can go to that are not as busy as the main hub if you need a backup airport.

Then it would be in a manual. Actually they recently updated our go-around and approach fuel recommendations due to recent data and lowered the numbers. Again, I think you are not understanding what I am saying. At Delta, they give us 70 minutes of fuel if there is no alternate. We get 45 minutes for FARs and 25 minutes of contingency per the FOM. We have policies regarding fuel planning already. We don't go by some random number an instructor who has been here for a couple of years says in a briefing room.

Because imagine if an instructor said to always takeoff 1,000 lbs under the runway limit. That is the same as saying you should land with 6,000 lbs of fuel.

My biggest gripe with a single fuel number is it falls apart quickly. That HNL flight is a perfect example. The captain diverted to an airport that was 2 minutes closer because they were going to land with 62 minutes of fuel. Are you telling me that when you check on with JFK approach and realize you will land with 62 minutes of fuel are you going to divert to ABE?

 

I'll stick with whichever is fuel state is higher. My comfort level, or what the book says. The book is usually higher, so that tends to make things real easy. Why make it harder?

 

I think you and HK may be talking past eachother. I've been on 3 fleets here and on each one there was a gouge number that most people wanted to land with at the most distant alternate. However, I have only seen this number referenced when verifying fuel planning while on the ground during preflight. I have never ever ever ever seen a CA or FO reference that gouge number once in flight when evaluating a divert. Usually it was min reserve plus whatever buffer the crew was comfortable using, generally quite a bit less than the gouge fuel planning number.

 

Lot of words here but you still don't seem to get it. Fine, like I said at the end of my wall of text. You do you.

Now to the WDR question - So long as I am at or below the PLW I am good to go.

 

If the minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum. What I love is a 45 minutes reserve into LAS when VFR knowing the closest other company airport is ONT. Landing at an airbase uninvited always weighs on the divert decision.

 

I had an LOE check airman ask me what I’m comfortable landing with a garden variety domestic VFR day. I told him 30 minutes and one second. He was surprised. I told him if I could GUARANTEE it, I’d do it every time. But that’s not really the question. The question is how much am I comfortable PLANNING with. And that varies by segment. A 6 hour transcon and I’m probably going to be much more conservative than a quick hop from DEN-ABQ. Why? Because errors are exaggerated over time. Moderate turbulence over a 6 hour flight at our planned altitude will cause a low fuel state if we have to descend 4000 feet to get smooth air. On the other hand, it won’t make much difference on a quick :45 minute flight. I’ve chuckled many times through the years when I’ve given the pax a smooth ride at FL250 while some are stuck in the mid 30’s because they were tight on gas. To each his own, but planning the bare minimum typically removes options that allow us to better serve our customers, including flying fast if needed to get back on schedule, in addition to altitude flexibility.

 

every time i’ve flown to vegas, i’ve seen a company note with extra contingency fuel

 

I have no problem with instructors saying min fuel is x but we teach to land with y. According to flight pulse, most go arounds to landing are between 1500-2000 lbs. So, with 6000 planned, your second approach is landing just above min fuel. If you are planned to land at 4.5 or 5, you're well into an emergency situation if ATC screws up spacing or someone takes to long on the runway or an unstable approach or or or.