Great - so some pilots are intent on telling us how we should do our jobs, again...
So let's consider the proposal that every standing agreement should be published so that the fancy computers that calculate fuel burn in relation to FL and track miles can have you all parking at the gate with nothing more than the legal minimum required to make a single approach to your alternate in the tanks. Fantastic idea!!!
Crews would be clogging the r/t in even greater numbers continuously bleating about how they were "fuel critical", "possibility may not make it do destination", "would really help us if we could route direct", blah blah blah...
"Do you wish to declare a fuel emergency?"
...................was that tumbleweed that just went by the ops room door?..
"Ummm, negative..."
Standing agreements are there to facilitate maximum use of airspace with minimal co-ordination (via telephone) so as to give ATCOs more opportunity to spend time devoted to stopping the cigar tubes from welding themselves together. They are not, and this may come as no surprise to you, there for the benefit of the "customer".
When sectors are combined or 'band-boxed', such standing agreements may not be in force. Some sectors have flexible boundaries which move in relation to peak traffic flow and some agreements may be altered on a daily, or several times daily, tactical basis depending again upon traffic flow, runway in use, equipment serviceabilities, staffing levels etc, etc, etc..
Do you seriously think you would benefit from having every single ATC sector in the FMS, with every single possible standing agreement, which for a variety of reasons, all invisible to you, may not be adhered to on any given day?
Please!
You can only shave so much of your fuel bill before you get into the realms of the lunatics running the asylum.
What do your shareholders want:
a) Profit with fuel expended aircraft that had CBs and delay not determined at destination AND alternate smearing itself plus pax over a muddy field somewhere with subsequent litigation?
or..
b) A safe but never the less profitable operation?
The fueling situation is bad enough as it is without increasingly congested skies resulting in reroutes and lower levels and time delays and speed restrictions and slot times combining to make the situation even more critical than it is currently.
Then YOU would have even more gas scooped out of the tanks, increasing the pressure on often fatigued crews and overloaded ATCOs and all at risk to all on board to keep the shareholders happy!
Who do you work for again? I must make a note to fly with someone else.