DFH Article

[manniax]

Good article on the dispatch from home concept. As I have said here before, I agree with the ADF on this subject.

While You're in the Air, Pilots' Key Partners May Be Working From Home

Millions of people boarded flights this summer, eager for an escape more than two years into a stifling pandemic. What many may not have realized is that at least some of the dispatchers who planned and managed those flights — mapping out routes, monitoring weather forecasts and more — were...

news.yahoo.com

 

[retrodx]

Interesting read, even if it's clear which side it's on.

Gotta admit, the second point about DFH undermining safety had me laughing.. "In another, a dispatcher at Republic’s operations center worked well beyond the FAA-mandated maximum 10-hour shift because the dispatcher’s replacement was having trouble connecting to the internet."

Part of that seems self-induced and it doesn't really seem like DFH wholly deserves that critique. Plenty of regionals like to run at the absolute bare minimum with not enough overlap and heavy workloads.

 

[flynryan692]

Well, there is a lot of disingenuous statements in that article. The TWU dude just sounds like a boomer that can't fathom how this could possibly work because he doesn't understand technology and hasn't seen it in action. It's the typical "I don't understand so therefore I hate it" approach so many Americans use to judge almost anything these days. If anything it sounds like Republic has had a couple issues they need to sort out (WFH had nothing to do with a dispatcher working beyond 10 hours, what a reach), but I can attest to the fact SkyWest has reliably and safely conducted remote dispatch operations without a single incident.

This article really strikes me as the sort of thing TWU/ADF paid to have written to put public pressure on the FAA to stop the practice. They've made no progress squashing it otherwise because they are wrong about it, and they continue to be wrong about it. They can't even get their messaging right, it started with "well they'll outsource the jobs" and when they realized that wasn't working it became "well its not safe", which is another wrong and easily debunked claim. The technology, policies, and procedures around it are safe and meet or exceed the demands of the FAA time and time again.

p.s. the TWU/ADF doesn't seem to think the health and safety of their members counts under the "safety" umbrella. Weird flex.

 

[who'swho]

Interesting read, even if it's clear which side it's on.

Gotta admit, the second point about DFH undermining safety had me laughing.. "In another, a dispatcher at Republic’s operations center worked well beyond the FAA-mandated maximum 10-hour shift because the dispatcher’s replacement was having trouble connecting to the internet."

Part of that seems self-induced and it doesn't really seem like DFH wholly deserves that critique. Plenty of regionals like to run at the absolute bare minimum with not enough overlap and heavy workloads.

Doesn't help that the max you can actually work is 12 hours. 10 hours SCHEDULED but 12 if you need to stay over for any reason. While I thought there was a time when this was a decent idea during the early Covid days I think it's time to move on. My carrier didn't bother to renew the authorization they received because no one was using it.

 

[manniax]

p.s. the TWU/ADF doesn't seem to think the health and safety of their members counts under the "safety" umbrella. Weird flex.

Not sure where you got that from. But, everyone has their own interpretation of things, I suppose.

It seemed to me that Skywest was anxious to get WFH approved so that dispatchers could still work while in quarantine. I can see how some employees there might have wanted to do this, since they are non-union and, I assume, don't have traditional sick days like dispatchers at majors do, but I'm not sure this made their workforce any safer.

There were many options during the pandemic, pre-vaccine, to operate a traditional office safely. At my airline, we had a split operation, all voluntary, allowing greater spacing between desks. If there were any positive cases, that desk got a deep clean and anyone potentially exposed was notified. Everyone was allowed to take sick time if necessary without any penalty (other than the use of sick days.) It seemed to work very well for us, and I'm not aware of anyone getting COVID after a workplace exposure here.

Of course, with the development of vaccines (and vaccine requirements at some employers) the WFH safety argument of exposure prevention seems to be a non-issue now. I am hopeful that WFH will eventually quietly fade away. The fact that none of the majors have actively pursued it yet is, to me, a positive sign.

 

[Scarebus]

Dispatching from home can be easily done. The only real reason there is any opposition is that would immediately open the door to airlines outsourcing dispatch to third party vendors.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

Having lived in a city with two major airlines and one large regional, I have had several multiday power outages due to thunderstorms and ice storms. Power outages for routine apartment maintenance that last well beyond the schedule due to unseen complications. Similar for internet. Everyone loves WFH until their workload increases because of a power or internet outage at a co-workers residence. Phones constantly ringing because WFH co-worker is dealing with family and life problems while trying to dispatch.

Managers love WFH because it gives a pathway to cutting costs. A WFH dispatcher can be replaced by outsourced work.

 

[retrodx]

Having lived in a city with two major airlines and one large regional, I have had several multiday power outages due to thunderstorms and ice storms. Power outages for routine apartment maintenance that last well beyond the schedule due to unseen complications. Similar for internet. Everyone loves WFH until their workload increases because of a power or internet outage at a co-workers residence. Phones constantly ringing because WFH co-worker is dealing with family and life problems while trying to dispatch.

Managers love WFH because it gives a pathway to cutting costs. A WFH dispatcher can be replaced by outsourced work.

Yeah the DFW power grid really do be that way sometimes. From a neutral standpoint, infrastructure such as that is a concern.

Outsourcing? Nah. The airlines could do that now if they really wanted to, but then there is no accountability. Good luck trying to get some random J. Doe to send a new release on time because of unforeseen changes.

Also if some dude can remotely fly a 15000lb death reaper drone from a trailer in some backwater town, then DFH is doable. The tech is there without a doubt.

 

[flynryan692]

Not sure where you got that from. But, everyone has their own interpretation of things, I suppose.

It seemed to me that Skywest was anxious to get WFH approved so that dispatchers could still work while in quarantine. I can see how some employees there might have wanted to do this, since they are non-union and, I assume, don't have traditional sick days like dispatchers at majors do, but I'm not sure this made their workforce any safer.

There were many options during the pandemic, pre-vaccine, to operate a traditional office safely. At my airline, we had a split operation, all voluntary, allowing greater spacing between desks. If there were any positive cases, that desk got a deep clean and anyone potentially exposed was notified. Everyone was allowed to take sick time if necessary without any penalty (other than the use of sick days.) It seemed to work very well for us, and I'm not aware of anyone getting COVID after a workplace exposure here.

Of course, with the development of vaccines (and vaccine requirements at some employers) the WFH safety argument of exposure prevention seems to be a non-issue now. I am hopeful that WFH will eventually quietly fade away. The fact that none of the majors have actively pursued it yet is, to me, a positive sign.

Preventing exposure to COVID, as well as other illnesses, falls squarely under "health and safety". They clearly state that this doesn't increase safety, which I disagree. It perhaps doesn't increase flight safety, but it doesn't hurt it either, and it does help the actual dispatcher stay healthy (something you'd think these two groups care about). In the case of OO, they do not require a vaccine and there are several who are not vaccinated, including several who are in the upper age range and most at risk. I can recall one individual who didn't utilize WFH and was out for a long time with COVID and I was truly concerned he may not return. I know of others that worked a floor below the OCC who died from COVID. Why should we not allow something that helps people avoid illness when its proven to be safe and reliable?

Even if the vaccine was 100% perfect I don't think it would matter, WFH doesn't decrease safety and SkyWest's WFH program (and probably Republics) is evidence of the fact that it can be done reliably and safely. The FAA has determined these programs are being ran safely, there is regular surveillance, there is review, and these programs continue to pass the test. Authorization was being granted roughly every two weeks when I left. What else is scrutinized to that level, where the OPSPEC has to reauthorize it on a bi-weekly basis?

Having lived in a city with two major airlines and one large regional, I have had several multiday power outages due to thunderstorms and ice storms. Power outages for routine apartment maintenance that last well beyond the schedule due to unseen complications. Similar for internet. Everyone loves WFH until their workload increases because of a power or internet outage at a co-workers residence. Phones constantly ringing because WFH co-worker is dealing with family and life problems while trying to dispatch.

Managers love WFH because it gives a pathway to cutting costs. A WFH dispatcher can be replaced by outsourced work.

You guys over exaggerate so much on this topic, it's kind of hilarious. If your power supply is that unreliable you're not authorized to work from home in the first place. Non-issue. Multiday power outages for thunderstorms and ice storms seems like a larger issue that would impact the OCC regardless. One WFH dispatcher unable to connect doesn't make "phones ring off the hook". One or two calls, maybe, assuming they didn't call in and report they were having issues, and the beginning of the desk is slowly spread. Non-issue. I'll grant you the internet part, although it was never an issue, I have always firmly believed they needed to issue hotspots for internet to act as a back up.

WFH isn't a path way to outsourcing jobs because a requirement is that the dispatcher has to be able to report to the OCC at any moment in their shift, kinda hard to do that from half way around the world. If that requirement is ever dropped you can make that assertion, but I think that's a pretty big sticking point so I doubt it ever will. I think a lot of people would turn against WFH if they did that, myself included.

These comments just prove what I said earlier. You don't understand it, you don't know how it works, and instead of trying to understand it and know how it works, know how things have been accounted for, you jump straight into "I hate it" and don't want to hear any other part of it. I get it though, until I left I didn't realize how strange other OCC's can be ran. It works for SkyWest because they have a great operation and built the WFH program to work seamlessly inside of it. Knowing what I know about other OCC's, yeah I can't say they have the right culture, tech, or anything else to pull it off. If an operation like that is in your limited view of how dispatch works then sure, it can seem scary. That's the point though, no operation is the same, some truly have this concept figured out.

None of these ADF or TWU people have ever stepped foot inside of the OCC's running WFH, they have no idea how it is ran, they make their own assumptions and provide comments to yahoo which just makes them look like ignorant fools.

 

[iono]

it’s not a viable option for every airline, certainly not any airline based in texas

 

[Flagship_dxer]

You guys over exaggerate so much on this topic, it's kind of hilarious. If your power supply is that unreliable you're not authorized to work from home in the first place. Non-issue. Multiday power outages for thunderstorms and ice storms seems like a larger issue that would impact the OCC regardless. One WFH dispatcher unable to connect doesn't make "phones ring off the hook". One or two calls, maybe, assuming they didn't call in and report they were having issues, and the beginning of the desk is slowly spread. Non-issue. I'll grant you the internet part, although it was never an issue, I have always firmly believed they needed to issue hotspots for internet to act as a back up.

Its relatively easy to cover desks ahead of time. But problems during the shift and at busy times will mean those calls and messages go somewhere. If its a busy day and middle of shift your WFH colleague loses internet or power then everyone else is getting stuck with the calls. Even if WFH could quickly report to OCC during an unplanned internet or phone outage, its still 15-20 minutes minimum to drive in to work and then another 10-15 minutes to get desk set up and running. Thats about 30-45 minutes minimum worth of calls and messages for someone to monitor on top of existing workload. Its a setup thats going to fail if implemented on a large scale.

 

[I Like IKE]

None of these ADF or TWU people have ever stepped foot inside of the OCC's running WFH, they have no idea how it is ran, they make their own assumptions and provide comments to yahoo which just makes them look like ignorant fools.

Sorry, but this right here makes you sound a little ignorant. I was the union rep at my regional, which is in the same TWU local as Republic. I can't speak for Gary Peterson, who is over the entire air division for TWU, but I can tell you the local leadership visited the airlines in the local. DFH was also discussed at length, including the risks vs the benefit. I completely agree that it is not safe. I can also tell you that it was like pulling teeth to get my airline to make changes for the safety of our members during Covid-19 or any other time. They refused to discontinue use of the time-clock, which required your fingerprint to clock in and out in the middle of a pandemic. (One point in the OCC where literally everyone in the room had to touch twice a day.) Our OCC was considered its own Covid-19 hotspot. And don't even get started on the other glaring safety issues that went ignored, one of which literally landed me in the ER getting a cast. So forgive me if I don't buy that airlines are doing this for the safety of their employees.
DFH creates entirely too many safety concerns in my mind. You dismiss loss of communication as possibly missing 1 or 2 phone calls, but it's more than that. You're talking about losing operational control. And if you think the airline will graciously accept responsibility for you losing operational control from your home, you're kidding yourself.
Anyone who works in aviation for long should know that just because nothing bad has happened yet doesn't mean it can't or that there isn't a very real safety concern.
I'd love to work from home as much as anyone else. But as a professional who is responsible for the lives of everyone on every flight my signature is on, I'm not willing to take the risks associated with DFH.

 

[manniax]

Preventing exposure to COVID, as well as other illnesses, falls squarely under "health and safety". They clearly state that this doesn't increase safety, which I disagree. It perhaps doesn't increase flight safety, but it doesn't hurt it either, and it does help the actual dispatcher stay healthy (something you'd think these two groups care about). In the case of OO, they do not require a vaccine and there are several who are not vaccinated, including several who are in the upper age range and most at risk. I can recall one individual who didn't utilize WFH and was out for a long time with COVID and I was truly concerned he may not return. I know of others that worked a floor below the OCC who died from COVID. Why should we not allow something that helps people avoid illness when its proven to be safe and reliable?

Even if the vaccine was 100% perfect I don't think it would matter, WFH doesn't decrease safety and SkyWest's WFH program (and probably Republics) is evidence of the fact that it can be done reliably and safely. The FAA has determined these programs are being ran safely, there is regular surveillance, there is review, and these programs continue to pass the test. Authorization was being granted roughly every two weeks when I left. What else is scrutinized to that level, where the OPSPEC has to reauthorize it on a bi-weekly basis?

You guys over exaggerate so much on this topic, it's kind of hilarious. If your power supply is that unreliable you're not authorized to work from home in the first place. Non-issue. Multiday power outages for thunderstorms and ice storms seems like a larger issue that would impact the OCC regardless. One WFH dispatcher unable to connect doesn't make "phones ring off the hook". One or two calls, maybe, assuming they didn't call in and report they were having issues, and the beginning of the desk is slowly spread. Non-issue. I'll grant you the internet part, although it was never an issue, I have always firmly believed they needed to issue hotspots for internet to act as a back up.

WFH isn't a path way to outsourcing jobs because a requirement is that the dispatcher has to be able to report to the OCC at any moment in their shift, kinda hard to do that from half way around the world. If that requirement is ever dropped you can make that assertion, but I think that's a pretty big sticking point so I doubt it ever will. I think a lot of people would turn against WFH if they did that, myself included.

These comments just prove what I said earlier. You don't understand it, you don't know how it works, and instead of trying to understand it and know how it works, know how things have been accounted for, you jump straight into "I hate it" and don't want to hear any other part of it. I get it though, until I left I didn't realize how strange other OCC's can be ran. It works for SkyWest because they have a great operation and built the WFH program to work seamlessly inside of it. Knowing what I know about other OCC's, yeah I can't say they have the right culture, tech, or anything else to pull it off. If an operation like that is in your limited view of how dispatch works then sure, it can seem scary. That's the point though, no operation is the same, some truly have this concept figured out.

None of these ADF or TWU people have ever stepped foot inside of the OCC's running WFH, they have no idea how it is ran, they make their own assumptions and provide comments to yahoo which just makes them look like ignorant fools.

OK, I’m trying to resist the urge to reply to every post in this thread, but this one….man. Let’s take things in order here:

To imply that major airlines didn’t care about their employees by forcing them to work in the office during COVID with no regard for their health or safety is, quite simply, wrong and uniformed. During COVID, when there was an excess of employees for the number of flights we were operating, my major offered “reserve” days. They were done on a seniority basis, but most people got one or two days off a week on reserve, where they got paid without having to come in. And, no sick leave used either. Did any regional do this, including Skywest? I could be wrong, but I strongly doubt it.

Point two…any employees before a vaccine was available that had a medical condition making them extremely susceptible to COVID were put on permanent reserve status until a vaccine WAS available. While some of them worked on special projects from home, everyone got paid. Nobody lost any sick time or was penalized for this. Yup, the company and union sure didn’t care about their employees any, huh?

WFH dispatch *was* ultimately approved by the FAA for use at my major, but so far I don’t think anyone is participating in it, perhaps because it was felt a webcam to monitor employees at home was added as a requirement. I was not involved in the process but I know extensive testing was done, and the procedures involved were modified over time before approval was granted. It wasn’t a hasty decision, in other words.

To say that any of the large major airlines don’t have the “culture, tech, or anything else to pull it off” is simply delusional. Perhaps if you’ve never worked for a major, you aren’t aware of how many more resources they have available versus the average regional airline. I do know people that work for Skywest, I have even visited the office in person (although it’s been quite a while) and I agree that it is a very nice office (for a regional)…but it’s not on the level of Delta, AA, etc. either.

I’ve worked at several different airlines over the course of my career, and I can confidently state that my current shop does as good of a job dispatching as I’ve ever seen. I’m quite happy to continue working with the “ignorant fools” here until I retire.

 

[flynryan692]

Sorry, but this right here makes you sound a little ignorant. I was the union rep at my regional, which is in the same TWU local as Republic. I can't speak for Gary Peterson, who is over the entire air division for TWU, but I can tell you the local leadership visited the airlines in the local. DFH was also discussed at length, including the risks vs the benefit. I completely agree that it is not safe. I can also tell you that it was like pulling teeth to get my airline to make changes for the safety of our members during Covid-19 or any other time. They refused to discontinue use of the time-clock, which required your fingerprint to clock in and out in the middle of a pandemic. (One point in the OCC where literally everyone in the room had to touch twice a day.) Our OCC was considered its own Covid-19 hotspot. And don't even get started on the other glaring safety issues that went ignored, one of which literally landed me in the ER getting a cast. So forgive me if I don't buy that airlines are doing this for the safety of their employees.
DFH creates entirely too many safety concerns in my mind. You dismiss loss of communication as possibly missing 1 or 2 phone calls, but it's more than that. You're talking about losing operational control. And if you think the airline will graciously accept responsibility for you losing operational control from your home, you're kidding yourself.
Anyone who works in aviation for long should know that just because nothing bad has happened yet doesn't mean it can't or that there isn't a very real safety concern.
I'd love to work from home as much as anyone else. But as a professional who is responsible for the lives of everyone on every flight my signature is on, I'm not willing to take the risks associated with DFH.

I originally wrote OO then changed it to OCC to not leave anybody out, which is maybe my mistake to speak on things I am not as familiar with. With your comments and the article, maybe Republics DFH needs a lot of work. It's not like that for OO. I believe there were a couple others doing it but I don't recall who they are.

OK, I’m trying to resist the urge to reply to every post in this thread, but this one….man. Let’s take things in order here:

To imply that major airlines didn’t care about their employees by forcing them to work in the office during COVID with no regard for their health or safety is, quite simply, wrong and uniformed. During COVID, when there was an excess of employees for the number of flights we were operating, my major offered “reserve” days. They were done on a seniority basis, but most people got one or two days off a week on reserve, where they got paid without having to come in. And, no sick leave used either. Did any regional do this, including Skywest? I could be wrong, but I strongly doubt it.

Point two…any employees before a vaccine was available that had a medical condition making them extremely susceptible to COVID were put on permanent reserve status until a vaccine WAS available. While some of them worked on special projects from home, everyone got paid. Nobody lost any sick time or was penalized for this. Yup, the company and union sure didn’t care about their employees any, huh?

WFH dispatch *was* ultimately approved by the FAA for use at my major, but so far I don’t think anyone is participating in it, perhaps because it was felt a webcam to monitor employees at home was added as a requirement. I was not involved in the process but I know extensive testing was done, and the procedures involved were modified over time before approval was granted. It wasn’t a hasty decision, in other words.

To say that any of the large major airlines don’t have the “culture, tech, or anything else to pull it off” is simply delusional. Perhaps if you’ve never worked for a major, you aren’t aware of how many more resources they have available versus the average regional airline. I do know people that work for Skywest, I have even visited the office in person (although it’s been quite a while) and I agree that it is a very nice office (for a regional)…but it’s not on the level of Delta, AA, etc. either.

I’ve worked at several different airlines over the course of my career, and I can confidently state that my current shop does as good of a job dispatching as I’ve ever seen. I’m quite happy to continue working with the “ignorant fools” here until I retire.

It is clear you're not fully understanding what I am saying.

I did not say or imply major carriers don't care about the health and safety of dispatchers. I very clearly wrote that TWU/ADF doesn't. It's in my first response. This is not and has never been about major carriers, it's been about TWU, ADF, and the yahoo article. You are dragging the major carriers into this.

Point two...Ok. See above.

A webcam being required to WFH is a little invasive no matter what your job is, and I can see why nobody would be participating if that is required.

I didn't say any of the major airlines don’t have the culture, tech, or anything else to pull it off, I said "what I know about other OCC's". I'm very familiar with the tech and resources available at the majors, they could do it if they wanted to but there are a lot of other things for them to consider, maybe it isn't a fit for them. You made the assumption it was some kind of attack on major airlines. I'm specifically talking about the two other OCC's I personally know from experience, one of which doesn't DFH but I believe could, and another is just not there in terms of technology (bad IT department, poor software configuration, not the best processes). I was simply saying if your view of how an OCC is ran is based on experience at an airline that operates in some manner that isn't very compatible with DFH, I can understand why you'd have the view that DFH isn't a good idea.

To be honest I could have said what I wanted a little more eloquently and with less writing by simply saying this. What works for one may not work for another, but just because it doesn't work for another, or even universally for all, doesn't mean it shouldn't be an available option. If an airline can prove that they can do it safely, there is no issue, just like any other OPSPEC. To avoid getting anybody all offended, I'll be specific, SkyWest has it nailed down pretty well and other than not having redundant internet I fail to see any issue with their specific DFH program. Maybe Republic and others need some changes, or to stop all together, but that doesn't mean SkyWest shouldn't get to do it because others have short comings, or because some union at some other airline says they don't like it. It also doesn't mean DFH is universally a bad and unsafe thing, I strongly believe the way SkyWest does DFH is safe and reliable, and apparently so does the FAA. DFH comes in the form of an OPSPEC and there are many OPSPEC that work for one airline but others choose not to have them added to their own OPSPEC for whatever reason, including they don't agree with the safety of it, or cost, usefulness, or whatever else. I don't think this is any different.

 

[manniax]

I did not say or imply major carriers don't care about the health and safety of dispatchers. I very clearly wrote that TWU/ADF doesn't. It's in my first response. This is not and has never been about major carriers, it's been about TWU, ADF, and the yahoo article. You are dragging the major carriers into this.

I mean, I'm no longer in the TWU but I am an ADF member - and I've always felt both organizations DO care about the well-being of their members. I think they are saying that, now that there are safe & effective vaccines available, the rationale for WFH is no longer valid and thus, it should not be allowed to continue.

To be honest I could have said what I wanted a little more eloquently and with less writing by simply saying this. What works for one may not work for another, but just because it doesn't work for another, or even universally for all, doesn't mean it shouldn't be an available option. If an airline can prove that they can do it safely, there is no issue, just like any other OPSPEC. To avoid getting anybody all offended, I'll be specific, SkyWest has it nailed down pretty well and other than not having redundant internet I fail to see any issue with their specific DFH program. Maybe Republic and others need some changes, or to stop all together, but that doesn't mean SkyWest shouldn't get to do it because others have short comings, or because some union at some other airline says they don't like it. It also doesn't mean DFH is universally a bad and unsafe thing, I strongly believe the way SkyWest does DFH is safe and reliable, and apparently so does the FAA. DFH comes in the form of an OPSPEC and there are many OPSPEC that work for one airline but others choose not to have them added to their own OPSPEC for whatever reason, including they don't agree with the safety of it, or cost, usefulness, or whatever else. I don't think this is any different.

I have not experienced WFH for myself. I do know one individual currently doing it that enjoys it...in his case, he signed up due to mobility issues rather than COVID concerns. It would personally not be something I'd ever want to try, in part due to the lack of redundancy/backups/on-site IT support/etc. - but the biggest issue for me is that there have been too many times over my career when I've heard about an issue by being seated nearby other dispatchers by hearing them talk about it. I know that MS Teams is an option, we use it now where I work, but it's not the same as being there in person. Similarly, there have been times I've been having issues (inflight medical diversion, for one example) and others could see I was busy right away, by overhearing my conversation, and immediately offered to help without me having to call or message them. To me, this is the most irreplaceable part of a traditional NOC.

I also agree with the ADF President's quote in the article in the sense that...the traditional NOC office is extremely effective, so why make a radical change to the way things are done if it doesn't increase flight safety? In the end, the ultimate decision on WFH dispatch being allowed to continue for US carriers will be made well above my pay grade...but I'm afraid that I'll never see the advantages outweighing the potential drawbacks/complications.

 

[pljenkins]

This whole thread has me shaking my head. Let's consider a few points:

Safety: A dispatcher must be engaged, aware, and present the whole time he has a flight in the air. At most airlines, that's the entire shift. Why do you think we don't get lunch breaks or any kind of break beyond essential function breaks? In an OCC/NOC, this contingency is covered by having another licensed dispatcher present should one need to duck out for something. There's no way to know for sure whether a dispatcher working from home is engaged, present, or even alive at any given moment. If I have a grabber and flop face down on my desk, I'm pretty sure someone will notice rather quickly. The first hint your WFH dispatcher is incapacitated might be when a crew needs him the most.

Security: I don't have access to many company assets at home. Why? They are confidential. On the same token, the network at our OCC is secure, monitored at all times, and hardened against attack. Although there are secure solutions like VPN into the network, are you sure the computer being used to tunnel into the network is also secure? And then there is the issue of drug/alcohol testing and fitness for duty. Neither of which are adequately addressed when considering WFH.

Emergency Operations/Irregular Operations: If a dispatcher in an OCC has an issue, becomes overwhelmed, or otherwise loses situational/operational awareness, there is a room full of knowledge and help immediately available to that dispatcher. He need only turn to the guy next to him and signal his need for assistance/guidance/workload shedding. WFH guy has his cat. Much as we like to think we have it all handled, most "in the red" dispatchers find that they don't realize how down the rabbit hole they are until someone comes by and offers to help. Whether it be ego, type A, whatever, many of us don't ask for help until far beyond when we really should have, and by the time things get truly gnarly the WFH guy might not have the time or ability to pick up a phone and ask for help. In WFH-land, no one can hear you scream.

There's a reason why nearly every airline in the United States, when offered WFH by the FAA said anywhere between "no thanks" and "you're kidding, right?" WFH is a GALACTICALLY bad idea given our job requirements and our responsibilities. Hell, I would LOVE to not have to take my life into my own hands twice a day to get to and from work. Anyone who has driven in Dallas understands. But I have pride in my profession, and I don't want to compromise my professional standards for convenience.

 

[manniax]

This whole thread has me shaking my head. Let's consider a few points:

Safety: A dispatcher must be engaged, aware, and present the whole time he has a flight in the air. At most airlines, that's the entire shift. Why do you think we don't get lunch breaks or any kind of break beyond essential function breaks? In an OCC/NOC, this contingency is covered by having another licensed dispatcher present should one need to duck out for something. There's no way to know for sure whether a dispatcher working from home is engaged, present, or even alive at any given moment. If I have a grabber and flop face down on my desk, I'm pretty sure someone will notice rather quickly. The first hint your WFH dispatcher is incapacitated might be when a crew needs him the most.

Security: I don't have access to many company assets at home. Why? They are confidential. On the same token, the network at our OCC is secure, monitored at all times, and hardened against attack. Although there are secure solutions like VPN into the network, are you sure the computer being used to tunnel into the network is also secure? And then there is the issue of drug/alcohol testing and fitness for duty. Neither of which are adequately addressed when considering WFH.

Emergency Operations/Irregular Operations: If a dispatcher in an OCC has an issue, becomes overwhelmed, or otherwise loses situational/operational awareness, there is a room full of knowledge and help immediately available to that dispatcher. He need only turn to the guy next to him and signal his need for assistance/guidance/workload shedding. WFH guy has his cat. Much as we like to think we have it all handled, most "in the red" dispatchers find that they don't realize how down the rabbit hole they are until someone comes by and offers to help. Whether it be ego, type A, whatever, many of us don't ask for help until far beyond when we really should have, and by the time things get truly gnarly the WFH guy might not have the time or ability to pick up a phone and ask for help. In WFH-land, no one can hear you scream.

There's a reason why nearly every airline in the United States, when offered WFH by the FAA said anywhere between "no thanks" and "you're kidding, right?" WFH is a GALACTICALLY bad idea given our job requirements and our responsibilities. Hell, I would LOVE to not have to take my life into my own hands twice a day to get to and from work. Anyone who has driven in Dallas understands. But I have pride in my profession, and I don't want to compromise my professional standards for convenience.

Safety: For our WFH option, it requires a webcam monitoring you, so they can tell if you suddenly pass out. In order to get the signoff, one dispatcher at the NOC proper can monitor up to four WFH dispatchers via webcam. If one of them needs to use the facilities/grab coffee/etc. he can watch their desk momentarily. It’s super inefficient but that’s how they got around that here. Still not as good as being able to see someone in person, and I’d never want a company webcam in my home, for any reason. So I won’t be participating. It’s also rather inefficient IMO to have one person just sitting around making sure that nobody working from home keels over.

Security: I think the WFH setup authorized here is a self-contained computer. So it should theoretically be secure…but it is in a private residence, beyond company control, which I don’t think is a good idea. Not sure how the connection to the NOC is done - I presume through a VPN - but I never investigated the process much since I wasn’t interested in the first place. I think it would be easy enough to direct someone to go take a drug/alcohol test, BUT it probably would be harder to tell if someone is intoxicated while on the job. This should be a super rare event, but there’s always that one person who tries to test the system.

Emergency/Irregular Ops: Totally agree with you on this one. Beyond the webcam requirement we have, it’s the main reason I would never be interested in trying this.

 

[retrodx]

To be honest I could have said what I wanted a little more eloquently and with less writing by simply saying this. What works for one may not work for another, but just because it doesn't work for another, or even universally for all, doesn't mean it shouldn't be an available option. If an airline can prove that they can do it safely, there is no issue, just like any other OPSPEC. To avoid getting anybody all offended, I'll be specific, SkyWest has it nailed down pretty well and other than not having redundant internet I fail to see any issue with their specific DFH program. Maybe Republic and others need some changes, or to stop all together, but that doesn't mean SkyWest shouldn't get to do it because others have short comings, or because some union at some other airline says they don't like it. It also doesn't mean DFH is universally a bad and unsafe thing, I strongly believe the way SkyWest does DFH is safe and reliable, and apparently so does the FAA. DFH comes in the form of an OPSPEC and there are many OPSPEC that work for one airline but others choose not to have them added to their own OPSPEC for whatever reason, including they don't agree with the safety of it, or cost, usefulness, or whatever else. I don't think this is any different.

Gotta step back and make sure we’re really hearing and understanding this viewpoint. The resource management and infrastructure are valid points. However, it was said best above.

This high up TWU person seems to be attempting to take away something from a carrier that has already proven capable of doing it safely. With the FAA’s approval too. This would be no different than carriers speaking out against those who are capable of operating with B343. I’m not saying it’s happened, but some pilot union or random carrier should not be speaking out against someone’s authorization to exercise B343 safely just because “fuel planning is a serious matter.”

What happened to keeping options available and tools at our disposal?

Also, I need to put on my Boeing Tinfoil Hat-300ER for this one.. but maybe our extended family at SWA could’ve had that juicy contract if TWU wasn’t busy spending time and resources on things like this hit piece against a very sizable and respected non-union shop.

 

[I Like IKE]

Gotta step back and make sure we’re really hearing and understanding this viewpoint. The resource management and infrastructure are valid points. However, it was said best above.

This high up TWU person seems to be attempting to take away something from a carrier that has already proven capable of doing it safely. With the FAA’s approval too. This would be no different than carriers speaking out against those who are capable of operating with B343. I’m not saying it’s happened, but some pilot union or random carrier should not be speaking out against someone’s authorization to exercise B343 safely just because “fuel planning is a serious matter.”

What happened to keeping options available and tools at our disposal?

Also, I need to put on my Boeing Tinfoil Hat-300ER for this one.. but maybe our extended family at SWA could’ve had that juicy contract if TWU wasn’t busy spending time and resources on things like this hit piece against a very sizable and respected non-union shop.

Sorry, but I have to laugh everytime I see the argument that "the FAA approves, so it must be safe."

 

[MT]

TLDR: This isn’t good for the industry and for one reason. It opens up a very slippery slope.
Tomorrow we dispatch our flights from home.
Next year someone dispatches our flights from overseas for thousands of times less.