Narrative:

There was a big cell about 20 miles from the airport. We were filed with an alternate of ZZZ. While on the arrival; we were given holding instructions. We were given an expect further clearance time of 20 minutes. As normal practice around here; we were filed with no holding fuel. After getting holding instructions; we contacted dispatch to let them know we were given holding. It took 22 minutes for them to respond to us. At this point we were approaching our holding fix. We then texted them again to see if they were awake and got a response asking what our fuel on board was. The dispatcher came back and said ZZZ weather is worse than ZZZ1 and was possible looking at ZZZ2 as a new alternate. We told him we could see in the direction of ZZZ3 and it was clear. We got no response. About 4 minutes later they came back with our enroute fuel to ZZZ as 596. How is the possible to burn 596 pounds of fuel from the holding fix to ZZZ (286 NM)? We got this response while turning base on landing; almost 36 minutes after first contact with dispatch. We were in a critical phase of flight so we didn't respond. Once we got on the ground we called and asked why they didn't give us ZZZ3 as an alternate to begin with its only about 160 miles from ZZZ1 vs. ZZZ where the weather was worst and you would have to go straight through the storm to get there. No common sense being used in at all. The dispatcher told us that our landing weight was too high for ZZZ3 and ZZZ2. We landed with the 70;000 pounds card. He said that's what the computer told him and the computer said we would burn 596 pounds at long range cruise to go 286 miles from the hold to ZZZ. When filing us for an alternate make sure it makes sense to real time operation. ZZZ was a legal alternate but the weather was heading directly towards that airport. Use common sense. It shouldn't take 32 minutes to respond to a message sent from air to ground. If we are going to rely on a system like these please acknowledge within a timely fashion especially when the weather is questionable. This isn't the first time and I know I'm not the first person to file a report in relation to response time to ACARS messages. I'm not sure if it is a staffing problem but something needs to be done about this issue. Double-check your work before sending it out. If an airplane on average burn 1500 pounds per engine per hour how in god's name can you only burn 596 pounds for 286 NM. Have another dispatcher check your work if you are unsure. The company should train dispatchers a little bit better than they are doing. They seem to be trained to the bare minimums and it shows from time to time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: First Officer for a commuter air carrier advised that the company's planning for holds and alternates is unrealistic.

Narrative: There was a big cell about 20 miles from the airport. We were filed with an alternate of ZZZ. While on the arrival; we were given holding instructions. We were given an expect further clearance time of 20 minutes. As normal practice around here; we were filed with no holding fuel. After getting holding instructions; we contacted dispatch to let them know we were given holding. It took 22 minutes for them to respond to us. At this point we were approaching our holding fix. We then texted them again to see if they were awake and got a response asking what our fuel on board was. The Dispatcher came back and said ZZZ weather is worse than ZZZ1 and was possible looking at ZZZ2 as a new alternate. We told him we could see in the direction of ZZZ3 and it was clear. We got no response. About 4 minutes later they came back with our enroute fuel to ZZZ as 596. How is the possible to burn 596 LBS of fuel from the holding fix to ZZZ (286 NM)? We got this response while turning base on landing; almost 36 minutes after first contact with dispatch. We were in a critical phase of flight so we didn't respond. Once we got on the ground we called and asked why they didn't give us ZZZ3 as an alternate to begin with its only about 160 miles from ZZZ1 vs. ZZZ where the weather was worst and you would have to go straight through the storm to get there. No common sense being used in at all. The Dispatcher told us that our landing weight was too high for ZZZ3 and ZZZ2. We landed with the 70;000 LBS card. He said that's what the computer told him and the computer said we would burn 596 LBS at long range cruise to go 286 miles from the hold to ZZZ. When filing us for an alternate make sure it makes sense to real time operation. ZZZ was a legal alternate but the weather was heading directly towards that airport. Use common sense. It shouldn't take 32 minutes to respond to a message sent from air to ground. If we are going to rely on a system like these please acknowledge within a timely fashion especially when the weather is questionable. This isn't the first time and I know I'm not the first person to file a report in relation to response time to ACARS messages. I'm not sure if it is a staffing problem but something needs to be done about this issue. Double-check your work before sending it out. If an airplane on average burn 1500 LBS per engine per hour how in God's name can you only burn 596 LBS for 286 NM. Have another Dispatcher check your work if you are unsure. The company should train dispatchers a little bit better than they are doing. They seem to be trained to the bare minimums and it shows from time to time.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.