Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight

Narrative: The Dispatcher released Flight; ZZZ-DEN; ZZZ1 alternate (5.0 burn); [and] no dispatch add fuel; CONT/HOLD 1.0 (:12; reduced from standard); FAR reserve 3.6; planned ZFW 117.8.  Flight departed XA10Z/XA35Z.  The planned departure fuel was 20.1 with an arrival fuel of 10.1. The Dispatcher added the following remark: CAPTAIN**TSRA IMPACT AT ETA HAVE FUELER FUEL TO ATOG.  DEN was forecast for TSRA/SHRA and ceilings.I noticed that the departure fuel had not been confirmed (indicating the extra); and I sent an ACARS message asking their actual ZFW.  The flight replied 114.6; and I then messaged the crew back and noted that their actual ZFW would have allowed another 3K fuel; and also asked we didn't carry it.  There was no response.  After about 15 minutes; I sent another message asking for a call at DEN.  No response to that message either.  The DEN weather cooperated; and the flight landed without incident; with 10.2 FOB.The Captain did call about 30 minutes after arrival; and I asked why we hadn't taken the extra fuel when the actual ZFW had allowed for it.  He said that he had seen the note; but had gotten distracted; and only remembered it pushback time.  He decided that he was comfortable with the original 20.1 release fuel and elected to depart.  His attitude was very apologetic; but with that said; he still made a unilateral decision to depart with less fuel than he could have carried; just as the Captain of [previous] flight had a few days before.  It's my position here that the issue is a systemic one; and needs to be addressed.  Some takeaways:A generic 'FUEL TO ATOG' remark does not adequately reflect the nature of the continuing payload versus fuel issues to the flight crew community; and what means the Dispatcher must employ to mitigate/resolve these problems.Some crews do not read/react to release remarks on a timely basis.Some crews consider release remarks advisory only; with compliance optional.Echoing my IR/ASAP comments reference Flight [ABC] ZZZ-DEN on (Date); many crews seem to lack a fundamental understanding of FARs 121.533/121.535 vis-??-vis their PIC authority; incorrectly believing that authority to emanate from FAR 91.3.  Even the new release remark I mention using for Flight [ABC] is inadequate; since my use of the word 'suggest' lends itself to be interpreted as compliance optional.I am now using the following remark:121.533 CONDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONLOAD MAX FUEL TO XX.X ACTUAL ZFW PERMITTING FOR WX/ATCI reference the FAR 121.533 (Domestic (and would use 121.535 for Flag) to indicate this remark is an instruction; not a suggestion or recommendation; and the 'conditional' is whether the actual ZFW permits the extra fuel; or not.The XX.X is the planned release fuel plus 1.0 to 3.0 additional; to serve as a 'cap' to having a lowered than expected actual ZFW from being over-fueled to the extent that it's too heavy for the next leg in the aircraft's sequence.




Synopsis: After a flights departure time; Dispatcher noticed that the modified fuel on board had not been acknowledged by the crew.