Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During briefing in Ops; I noticed the REMF (Remaining Fuel) was 11.5 lbs. and 1:15 time which was lower than I had ever seen for this flight. It was release 2 and I learned that release 1 had had 13;000 something LBS and the captain had taken it down to 11.5. The relief pilots and I discussed this low number and when the captain arrived for briefing; we voiced our concerns. He said it was plenty of fuel and that he 'was a policy guy.' He also stated that he was not that familiar with Pacific flying; as he had flown mostly over the Atlantic. I told him that Sydney usually slowed us down way out and the other pilots pointed out that we had weather that we most likely would have to deviate around. I needed to get to the aircraft to preflight and; as I left; I said I would like more fuel. When the captain arrived at the plane; he said he had added 5 minutes of fuel.Halfway through the flight we were down 200 LBS. Then we were down 1;500 when we got into the Sydney area. We were slowed by center and vectored 70 degrees left then 70 right on the way into Marlin. When we touched down; I saw the gauge at 7.3 and as soon as we taxied off the runway; the FUEL QTY LOW EICAS came on. We didn't run the checklist; as we were already on the ground.The captain commented that the message came on just at the right time. During the de-brief he said he should have added 10 minutes rather than 5. I mentioned that his other 3 pilots had advocated for more fuel because we were familiar with Sydney operations and he said; 'But I'm the captain.'If this situation comes up again; I will use the word 'unsafe' rather than 'concerned' or 'uncomfortable' and will not take the flight with such a low landing fuel. I feel it was an unsafe operation because we had boxed ourselves into zero options in a normal flight and ended up taxiing to the gate with a FUEL QTY LOW light on.


Second narrative: Had a discussion with the Captain and FOs (First Officers) in Ops; as Captain had lowered the fuel load presented by Dispatch. The Captain said he was trying to comply more accurately with Fuel Policy. The other FOs and I advocated for more fuel based on their experience with routing around enroute weather over the South Pacific; and slowdowns/vectors approaching Sydney. The Captain explained he was a Policy Fuel guy; but did call Dispatch to further refine our fuel based on a finer analysis of enroute weather. He decided to add an additional 5 minutes of fuel to the 11.6 planned landing fuel. He explained his process and the Fuel Policy very well; so this number was a compromise with our concerns. I prefer not to dip below what Dispatch comes up with; but I have seen this before while flying with [this] Captain and an LCA (Line Check Airman) on this fleet. It was not new.We did burn extra fuel during the crossing and while avoiding weather. When the Captain came back up after his break; the FMC showed us landing with 10.5. I also pointed out that the Totalizer fuel had been running lower than calculated fuel; so Totalizer might be in the 9s on landing. ATC slowed us down well out on our arrival; and gave us some pretty big vectors. Captain briefed that he didn't expect it to be a problem; but gave 6.5 as Min Fuel and 30 minutes as Emergency Fuel.Once pointed inbound again the arrival happened without delay. I was seated in the aft right seat; so it was difficult to see; but noted 8.2 on the Totalizer while on final. The other FOs saw in the 7s after landing. The Low Fuel EICAS did come on as we cleared the runway. We debriefed at the gate. We FOs claimed our discomfort; as it felt like that much fuel didn't leave us many options. Captain quoted Fuel Policy; that we were well above 4.3 Emergency fuel; and that we likely could have done a few more approaches. He was correct in all his statements. We were on the thin side; but well within the parameters Fuel Policy is pushing for; as I understand it. We still weren't happy with it; but understood that the landing was in compliance with the Regs and FOM and Fuel Policy.So it was a surprise when; long after landing back at LAX; I received an email from the flying copilot; saying she had filed a [report]. That subject had not come up at all in debrief. We felt everything had been done in compliance with the rules. The email showed up late in the day; so was past the 'timeliness' window for these reports for me. I talked to FO; and she said she couldn't stop thinking about it; so filed a report. I asked her to inform the Captain she had done so.Shortly thereafter I received an email from Captain. I did talk to Captain; and he said he had received a message from the ERC to file a report. It was a total surprise to him. He felt it was likely a moot point for me to file at this point.So I file this report; to help you round out the reports you've already received. I believe we flew in compliance with our rules; burnt extra fuel that is there for that purpose; and landed with thin but adequate margins. Those allowed margins did constrain further options; had we needed them; so I did have heightened awareness and do understand and share some of FO's concerns.


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported poor CRM when discussing the required fuel load prior to departing across the Pacific.