Narrative:

This report regards a flight [that diverted] in september. I read the crew's report and I was also able to view the releases for the flight; but due to the elapsed time since the flight I have only a slight recollection of the event. I am not the dispatcher who sent the original release so I cannot speak as to how it was planned or how the original alternate was selected. I did amend the release twice. The first amendment was to change the alternate at the crew's request and the second was to add another alternate due to the flight diverting. The crew stated that 'dispatch continues to use inadequate alternates'. I cannot disagree with this. In my opinion the fuel savings policy has made it difficult for dispatchers to use their discretion to select more appropriate alternates. Even though we follow the policy outlined in [the dispatcher manual]; we are still being reprimanded by management. Remarks put on the releases per the policy are not being filtered out or even looked at; so we are being penalized even if the extra fuel or alternate is completely appropriate. During one occasion when I was being talked to by management about my fuel numbers; I was told that the company had recommended that specific dispatchers be fired for planning too much fuel. This was right after july; one of the peak months for convective activity when ATC reroutes and airborne holds are common. I was also told that the company preferred diversions over planning extra fuel. Other dispatchers have had similar meetings with management. Overall; the fuel saving policy is beneficial but the way it is being administered is fostering a negative culture amongst dispatchers and crews.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 Dispatcher comments on a flight that diverted five weeks earlier and laments the company policy concerning alternate selection and adding extra fuel for anticipated delays enroute.

Narrative: This report regards a flight [that diverted] in September. I read the crew's report and I was also able to view the releases for the flight; but due to the elapsed time since the flight I have only a slight recollection of the event. I am not the Dispatcher who sent the original release so I cannot speak as to how it was planned or how the original alternate was selected. I did amend the release twice. The first amendment was to change the alternate at the crew's request and the second was to add another alternate due to the flight diverting. The crew stated that 'Dispatch continues to use inadequate alternates'. I cannot disagree with this. In my opinion the fuel savings policy has made it difficult for dispatchers to use their discretion to select more appropriate alternates. Even though we follow the policy outlined in [the Dispatcher Manual]; we are still being reprimanded by management. Remarks put on the releases per the policy are not being filtered out or even looked at; so we are being penalized even if the extra fuel or alternate is completely appropriate. During one occasion when I was being talked to by management about my fuel numbers; I was told that the company had recommended that specific dispatchers be fired for planning too much fuel. This was right after July; one of the peak months for convective activity when ATC reroutes and airborne holds are common. I was also told that the company preferred diversions over planning extra fuel. Other dispatchers have had similar meetings with management. Overall; the fuel saving policy is beneficial but the way it is being administered is fostering a negative culture amongst dispatchers and crews.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.