DFH Article

[rivetor]

Well this isn't controversial

Interesting read. Clearly there's some biases in both directions. May the odds be ever in your favor

 

[F9DXER]

I know last winter, I lost both internet and cell phone usage (2 different companies) for a couple of days.

So WFH may not be doable or allowed for those that commute

 

[manniax]

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.

Just saw an interesting article about that today. Before any DFH proponents point out that it doesn't/wouldn't apply to their situation because of FAA regulations, etc., I KNOW it doesn't...for now...but it is something worth keeping in mind. It's easy for anyone to run a flight plan at home. It's another thing to maintain positive operational control in all situations.

Remote work could be the reason you don't have a job in 10 years

Outsourcing jobs could bring a “seismic” shock to knowledge workers.

fortune.com

 

[manniax]

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.

Not really related to the original topic, but US carriers operating under Part 121 could NOT do that now if they wanted to. It's not allowed by the FARs. Jeppesen was pushing hard for many years to get that changed, but they seem to have given up (for now) after their last attempt.

I believe that it *is* allowed to outsource flight planning for 121 Supplemental rules (although they still need to have an in-house flight following system) but I'm not aware of any carriers that do so. I could be wrong since I've never worked in the supplemental ops/cargo field any.

 

[retrodx]

Not really related to the original topic, but US carriers operating under Part 121 could NOT do that now if they wanted to. It's not allowed by the FARs. Jeppesen was pushing hard for many years to get that changed, but they seem to have given up (for now) after their last attempt.

I believe that it *is* allowed to outsource flight planning for 121 Supplemental rules (although they still need to have an in-house flight following system) but I'm not aware of any carriers that do so. I could be wrong since I've never worked in the supplemental ops/cargo field any.

You’re absolutely right. I should clarify that 121 carriers could outsource now, barring the regs, if they really wanted to.. As in the ability is there as discussed in this thread. It just seems they don’t pursue it because the money isn’t there. Unless we are assuming that our group is overpaid which is not the case. Plus it’s not in their best interest as we can see from the pushback, and they’d also have to lobby it. 121 supps can use third parties for planning as you said, but it’s not a thing. They too choose to keep it in house.

This is the US of A after all, and as much as we’d like to think airlines have us in mind - they also have their stakeholders and their money in mind as well. Outsourcing would likely not benefit their bottom line significantly enough to make a huge difference.. especially for our regional counterparts. Seriously, how much more could regionals save by moving their operational control to a third-world country? Money talks. Save a dollar, but relinquish control to some third party. I think that we bring more value than that to an operation, but this is just my armchair qback observation. Good luck trying to get some random third party to care enough to consider company obligations and tanker goals.

Who knows though, how’s the saying go? “Spend a dollar to save a dime”

 

[TRIGGERED]

Not really related to the original topic, but US carriers operating under Part 121 could NOT do that now if they wanted to. It's not allowed by the FARs. Jeppesen was pushing hard for many years to get that changed, but they seem to have given up (for now) after their last attempt.

I believe that it *is* allowed to outsource flight planning for 121 Supplemental rules (although they still need to have an in-house flight following system) but I'm not aware of any carriers that do so. I could be wrong since I've never worked in the supplemental ops/cargo field any.

What are the actual regs behind this? ABX and ATI were both dispatched by a company called GFS for a short time. So some days a GFS dispatcher could work one airline and other days the other. Granted, GFS was also owned by ATSG but nonetheless was still a seperate company.

 

[manniax]

What are the actual regs behind this? ABX and ATI were both dispatched by a company called GFS for a short time. So some days a GFS dispatcher could work one airline and other days the other. Granted, GFS was also owned by ATSG but nonetheless was still a seperate company.

ABX and ATI operated under Part 121 Supplemental rules, which allows for contracting out flight planning. Regular Part 121 does not. This older post from @jaydog explains how things worked there:

GFS is a part 121 supplemental and we are not dispatchers. We are flight followers. There is a huge difference. As a Part 121 supp we have a bit more flexibility in how we operate than the 121 Domestic/Flag operations do. The only drawback to what we do is that the FAA scrutinizes the operation a bit more. Because it is new to the FAA they fought long and hard to try and stop it. But GFS continued to prove to them that it was legal, safe and that there really wasn't anything that the FAA could do to shut it down. So the FAA approved the contract work for us with stipulations of course. However the rules set in place aren't bad and as we continue to work under the rules they actually make sense.

 

[azmedic]

Maybe I’m approaching Boomer status but the greatest thing about leaving the OCC/NOC/SOC is that as soon as I walk out the door that’s where work stays. When home becomes “work” you lose that whole “work-life” balance that’s always preached about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BayouMLU]

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.

Working from home sounds awesome until companies realize that they can pay someone less money to do the same job from their home in Asia...

Maybe I’m approaching Boomer status but the greatest thing about leaving the OCC/NOC/SOC is that as soon as I walk out the door that’s where work stays. When home becomes “work” you lose that whole “work-life” balance that’s always preached about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not enough emphasis can be placed on the value of leaving it behind when you leave work. It's a major quality of life consideration.