Incentives for Amount of Releases

This sort of thing is pretty typical in most jobs. I see no problem with it as long as actual data is used to set the KPI to make sure it's not unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with holding people accountable to certain standards.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
This sort of thing is pretty typical in most jobs. I see no problem with it as long as actual data is used to set the KPI to make sure it's not unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with holding people accountable to certain standards.
Click to expand...
This is already a thing. A workload is set with a number of releases. That’s good enough. We don’t need pay metrics set to number of releases generated. A dispatcher’s job is to be able to say no when every other department’s job is to say yes.
 
$150 a release works out to between .50 to $3.00 per person. They could pass it along to the passenger as extra fee and passengers wouldn't notice. Those 30 to 50 releases a day would be alot easier to handle.
 
@SlumTodd_Millionaire the thing is, I have the same number of releases to do regardless of whether I get a bonus on them or not. It's not measuring or rewarding my performance. I am assigned a desk with flights leaving within a certain window. The only way I'm getting more releases is stealing them off other people's desk. The only way I'm doing less is if I pass them off to other co-workers. Therefore there would be no reason for a bonus system.

You think we should be paid based on performance, how do you gauge that performance? Any metric you use, we may sometimes need to screw the metric for the sake of safety. If you pay based on metrics, you take the focus away from safety. Also, "everyone else in the world" isn't responsible (in coordination with others) for the safety of thousands of lives each day.

I would like to think that my value to my airline is more than a spreadsheet of metrics of fuel saved and releases generated etc. I would like to think that they value my ability to take in everything going on and make the safest decision even if it costs a little bit more.
 
flygirl142 said:
I would like to think that my value to my airline is more than a spreadsheet of metrics of fuel saved and releases generated etc.
Click to expand...

Everyone in every job would like to think that. But ultimately, every job is about metrics. You exist to produce revenue.

Having never been in charge of system operations, I couldn't tell you if number of releases is the right KPI. But I know for certain that your position has several metrics that could be used to determine performance. Every position does.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
Everyone in every job would like to think that. But ultimately, every job is about metrics. You exist to produce revenue.

Having never been in charge of system operations, I couldn't tell you if number of releases is the right KPI. But I know for certain that your position has several metrics that could be used to determine performance. Every position does.
Click to expand...
It does have metrics, but those metrics still exist within a framework of safety. I am allowed to put more fuel than they would like when there is a safety reason to do so.

For what it is worth, safety is also revenue related. An accident is going to cost a whole lot more money than the extra fuel I may have added over what the company would have liked but I believed was necessary for safety.
 
flygirl142 said:
It does have metrics, but those metrics still exist within a framework of safety. I am allowed to put more fuel than they would like when there is a safety reason to do so.

For what it is worth, safety is also revenue related. An accident is going to cost a whole lot more money than the extra fuel I may have added over what the company would have liked but I believed was necessary for safety.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that safety is not a factor. As a fourteen year airline pilot, I'm well aware of the need of safety. But I'm also aware that things fall within an area of reasonableness. I flew with pilots who ALWAYS wanted to add extra fuel. Those pilots, frankly, should be retrained. And perhaps they should be incentivized to fall within certain norms with bonuses. It might make them think twice before unnecessarily carting around thousands of pounds of needless fuel that the dispatcher didn't think was necessary.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
I'm not arguing that safety is not a factor. As a fourteen year airline pilot, I'm well aware of the need of safety. But I'm also aware that things fall within an area of reasonableness. I flew with pilots who ALWAYS wanted to add extra fuel. Those pilots, frankly, should be retrained. And perhaps they should be incentivized to fall within certain norms with bonuses. It might make them think twice before unnecessarily carting around thousands of pounds of needless fuel that the dispatcher didn't think was necessary.
Click to expand...
I hear you on that. My favorite was a guy who demanded two altns and 1000 extra lbs even though he landed at 6sm bkn029
 
I suggest we pay pilots based on the number landings they make. As that is the most difficult part of the flying job, Shouldn’t they be be compensated by how well and how many they make. Of course hard landings and landings not at scheduled destinatikns will not be counted. Only the pilot flying will make 100% rate. The pilot monitoring gets half rate.

and it solves the Regional pilot shortage problem

win win
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
You exist to produce revenue.
Click to expand...
This is 100% false. My position exists to ensure the safe operation of the airline because the FAA says so.

We single handedly control the second largest expense in the airline. Nothing we do from a dispatch chair produces revenue of any sort, just expense. What we do for the company is keep them from even larger expenses such as diversions, inflight injuries, or god forbid accidents and the associated bad press, lawsuits, and other costs that would come from them.

None of my colleagues are naive enough to think we wouldn’t be among the first on the chopping block if we were not required. We are not revenue producers, we are safety officers.
 
MT said:
This is 100% false. My position exists to ensure the safe operation of the airline because the FAA says so.

We single handedly control the second largest expense in the airline. Nothing we do from a dispatch chair produces revenue of any sort, just expense. What we do for the company is keep them from even larger expenses such as diversions, inflight injuries, or god forbid accidents and the associated bad press, lawsuits, and other costs that would come from them.

None of my colleagues are naive enough to think we wouldn’t be among the first on the chopping block if we were not required. We are not revenue producers, we are safety officers.
Click to expand...

I don’t know how to break this to you, but every position at every company exists purely to produce revenue. That’s it.
 
1668277253421.gif
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
I don’t know how to break this to you, but every position at every company exists purely to produce revenue. That’s it.
Click to expand...
this. airlines want dispatchers because it allows pilots to just focus on flying (making the company money). they only need us because the FAA says so
 
Last edited:
This feels like both sides are kinda right. On the one hand, an airline wouldn't have Dispatchers if the FAA didn't mandate it for safety reasons. With today's tech they could get away with automation generating flight plans, not saying I support this. On the other hand, due to the regs the airline is unable to generate revenue without a Dispatcher.

I'll get back to eating my popcorn now, carry on!
 
who'swho said:
This feels like both sides are kinda right. On the one hand, an airline wouldn't have Dispatchers if the FAA didn't mandate it for safety reasons. With today's tech they could get away with automation generating flight plans, not saying I support this. On the other hand, due to the regs the airline is unable to generate revenue without a Dispatcher.

I'll get back to eating my popcorn now, carry on!
Click to expand...

I do and don’t agree. The dispatcher in its current form can change if the FAA stops mandating we exist but many aspects of the job won’t go away. I can’t see the FAA and any safety focused airline (which should be all of them) get rid of a pretty important layer of Swiss cheese.

Essentially there will always need to be someone watching flights from the ground who works in the airlines SOC who can make decisions when the pilots are not able to and or see the big picture. At the most I can see dispatchers all becoming flight followers and eliminating the flight planning portion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top