B737 AT FL370 WITH ZLC REFUSES RERTE ISSUED BY ATC BECAUSE OF FUEL CONCERNS.

Narrative

WE OPERATED AN INTL FLT. THE DEST WX AND FORECAST WERE RPTED TO BE GOOD (VMC). THEREFORE; WE OPERATED WITH NO ALTERNATE ARPT AND WITH THE (NEW) 5% INTL FUEL RESERVE. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANY'S DESIRE TO REDUCE FUEL BURN BY NOT CARRYING UNNECESSARY FUEL. OVER IDAHO; WE RECEIVED A RERTE TO THE DEST. AFTER LOADING IT INTO THE FMC; I CONCLUDED THAT WE WOULD ARRIVE IN THE TERMINAL AREA WITH AN UNSAFE AND; THEREFORE; UNACCEPTABLE FUEL LEVEL. ATC HAD NOT (YET) EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR THE RERTE; BUT I EXPECTED IT TO BE FOR WX ON THE RTE; NEAR THE DEST. I FELT THE FUEL LEVEL WAS UNACCEPTABLE AND WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUEL TO SAFELY REACH AN ALTERNATE OUTSIDE OF THE DEST METROPOLITAN AREA; IF WE PROCEEDED TO THE DEST TERMINAL AREA AND WERE UNABLE TO LAND ONCE THERE. WE THEN NOTIFIED THE ZLC CTLR THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE CLRNC DUE TO THE RESULTING ARR FUEL AND WE WERE CLRED TO RESUME THE ORIGINAL RTE. ZLC (THEN) CONFIRMED THAT THE RERTE REQUEST WAS DUE TO WX. WE OFFERED THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCEPTING OTHER (LESS LENGTHY) RERTES. WE THEN CONTACTED OUR DISPATCHER; WHO ISSUED 2 SIGMETS; ONE FOR A W/E STORM LINE WELL TO THE W OF THE DEST; AND ANOTHER FOR A LINE (OF TSTMS) FROM SW OF THE DEST TO WELL N. THE DISPATCHER STATED THAT IT (THE LINE XING THE DEST) HAD ONLY ISOLATED CELLS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PASSING FRONT. MOMENTS LATER; ON ANOTHER ZLC FREQ; WE WERE AGAIN ISSUED A SIMILAR RERTE. AGAIN; WE NOTIFIED THE CTLR THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE RERTE DUE TO THE RESULTING ARR FUEL LOAD. THE CTLR BECAME ADAMANT; DEMANDING THAT WE ACCEPT THE RERTE OR DIVERT. AGAIN; WE DECLINED AND STATED THAT WE WOULD DIVERT; IF NECESSARY; AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THE CTLR THEN ASKED IF WE WERE DECLARING A FUEL EMER. WE REPLIED TO THE NEGATIVE; BECAUSE WE WERE NOT FLYING THE RERTE. AGAIN WE CONTACTED OUR DISPATCH AND DISCUSSED THE WX; OTHER POSSIBLE RTES AND RERTES; AND POSSIBLE DIVERSION ARPTS. UPON ARR AT THE DEST; THE WX WAS NEARLY CLR AND WE LANDED WITH A NORMAL FUEL LOAD. I WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ZLC CTLR'S ACTIONS AND CONTACTED MY SUPVR (ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT) THE FOLLOWING DAY. HE INFORMED ME THAT I MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED A VIOLATION BY REFUSING THE RERTE. HIS OPINION WAS THAT SINCE THE THREAT TO SAFETY WAS NOT IMMINENT; THAT I DID NOT HAVE GNDS TO REFUSE THE CLRNC. IN REVIEWING THE PERTINENT FARS AND WRITTEN COMPANY POLICY; I FOUND NO REF TO IMMINENT OR IMMEDIATE THREATS TO SAFETY RATHER; I FOUND REFS TO SAFETY IN GENERAL. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS IMPROPER FOR ATC TO ATTEMPT TO USURP THE PIC'S AUTH; WHO 'IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR; AND IS THE FINAL AUTH AS TO; THE OP OF THAT ACFT' (FAR 91.3A). ALSO; TO ALLOW THE ACFT TO ARRIVE WITH A MARGINAL FUEL LEVEL WOULD HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION OF FAR 91.13A. FURTHER COMPLICATING THIS SIT IS THE COMPANY'S SOP TO OPERATE WITHOUT ALTERNATE ARPTS; WHENEVER POSSIBLE. FUEL IS TIME; TIME EQUALS OPTIONS AND SO WITHOUT FUEL; THERE ARE FEW OPTIONS.