Need advise/opinion about a career "transition"...what do you think?

[MIADX]

That just made me think of something: is it a bad sign when someone ALWAYS has a DX opening listed?

As long as there are more applicants than jobs, no.

 

[autosave36]

That just made me think of something: is it a bad sign when someone ALWAYS has a DX opening listed?

It depends why the openings exist. Is it people moving up from a regional? Then no. In fact for a newbie, it would maybe be a good thing to look for. If they cite management or pay or culture and its a lot of lateral moves or people leaving the field, then bad sign.

 

[MIADX]

There are only so many openings at the "premier" 121's and not everyone will make it to those. For every success story on here, there are dozens (if not hundreds in some cases) of rejections who aren't even on the site or never post. You've got to get in the game at some point if your aspirations are to be a dispatcher.

It depends why the openings exist. Is it people moving up from a regional? Then no. In fact for a newbie, it would maybe be a good thing to look for. If they cite management or pay or culture and its a lot of lateral moves or people leaving the field, then bad sign.

 

[Aeroscout840]

I jumped into dispatch in my 40's and am now at a major. Lots of excellent advice so far. You could go the 121sup route, find a home and move up pretty quickly. Moving, commuting, and being on the bottom are all part of the regional track. I worked at a company called National Air Cargo. They love former military, fly 747s to Afghanistan and other garden spots and pay pretty well. I mention them only as an example of the kind of sup jobs out there that may be a good fit. Best of luck to you.

 

[R2D]

Well, at the regional where I worked, the top 3 DXers had about two years in apiece. I can't think of anyone regularly working the desks who had anywhere CLOSE to five years in...

Incredible. While I've learned a lot in a few years, I still don't want to be the guy people come to with questions.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

I was you once upon a time. Its no walk in the park the only thing the the FE side helped, was knowing acft systems but that's not really a big help MX controllers are going to dictate whats going on with the jet not you. You'll get more out of all those years of listening to ATIS and reading WX reports from, and the that is, IF, the AC printed it out and just handed it back to you for you TOLD data rather than just telling you what it is. Enjoy low wages and wake up times until you get some seniority under your belt.

However, having a strong knowledge of MEL/CDL can cover your butt. I have experience as an MX controller. They will try to defer anything you let them get away with. Not only that, a lot of them are ignorant of flight operations. As long as it's legal to defer an item, they will. As a DX, it's your butt, except that most of the time the Captain won't let them get away with it. But if that safety valve fails, it's on you. Something to consider.

 

[MIADX]

As a dispatcher it's not my job to question the legitimacy of an MEL item. It is, however, my job to understand the operational implications as it relates to the safety of flight. Nothing more, nothing less.


The airline will teach you what you need to know to be a qualified dispatcher.

However, having a strong knowledge of MEL/CDL can cover your butt. I have experience as an MX controller. They will try to defer anything you let them get away with. Not only that, a lot of them are ignorant of flight operations. As long as it's legal to defer an item, they will. As a DX, it's your butt, except that most of the time the Captain won't let them get away with it. But if that safety valve fails, it's on you. Something to consider.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

As a dispatcher it's not my job to question the legitimacy of an MEL item. It is, however, my job to understand the operational implications as it relates to the safety of flight. Nothing more, nothing less.


The airline will teach you what you need to know to be a qualified dispatcher.

MIADX are you working for a major?

 

[Altimeter]

As a dispatcher it's not my job to question the legitimacy of an MEL item. It is, however, my job to understand the operational implications as it relates to the safety of flight. Nothing more, nothing less.


The airline will teach you what you need to know to be a qualified dispatcher.

Disagree. MX Controllers are people. People make mistakes. There’s a reason some MELS have to be approved by the dispatcher.

 

[MIADX]

Disagree. MX Controllers are people. People make mistakes. There’s a reason some MELS have to be approved by the dispatcher.

Agreed, and I think we're arguing semantics. Following the MEL ops procedure is a given and there are PIC/Dispatcher go/no-go considerations. Goes without saying I think. My point is that MX Controllers don't have the freedom to go rogue and defer items items willy-nilly. Either the MEL is legal or it's not. Either the flight is legal for dispatch or its not. There is no controversy.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

Disagree. MX Controllers are people. People make mistakes. There’s a reason some MELS have to be approved by the dispatcher.

That was my point. However if MIADX is working for a major, he or she is right. Majors has fancy computer programs and an army of dispatchers to ask if you are unsure. And a major will train you thoroughly. However if you are at a rag-tag Supplemental carrier you are on your own and that is what is going to get you "whacked" (as my DX Instructor liked to put it). At one of those outfits you will have 2 DX at most on 12 hour shifts. Nobody to ask and minimal training.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

Agreed, and I think we're arguing semantics. Following the MEL ops procedure is a given and there are PIC/Dispatcher go/no-go considerations. Goes without saying I think. My point is that MX Controllers don't have the freedom to go rogue and defer items items willy-nilly. Either the MEL is legal or it's not. Either the flight is legal for dispatch or its not. There is no controversy.

You are correct but the deferral can be legal from a maintenance standpoint and be illegal from a DX standpoint. That's why, (as MX controllers) we would have to call dispatch on certain items before we could defer an item. And Captains are human and their judgement could be clouded by the fact they want to get home (KLM Tenerife).

 

[MIADX]

You are correct but the deferral can be legal from a maintenance standpoint and be illegal from a DX standpoint. That's why, (as MX controllers) we would have to call dispatch on certain items before we could defer an item. And Captains are human and their judgement could be clouded by the fact they want to get home (KLM Tenerife).

We are all in agreement. All I'm saying is that I don't have an A&P Cert nor am I a qualified Mx Controller. Ergo it's not my job to oversee what they do or how they do it. My only focus is dispatching a legal flight and/or exercising my veto power as necessary. The conditions for and limitations of both scenarios are well outlined in the FAR's/OpSpecs/Company manuals. Before a dispatcher is allowed to issue and sign their first dispatch release, he/she will be trained on how to enforce MEL limitations and any associated operational implications. There's no secret sauce or hidden knowledge, it's just a matter of fact.

 

[Altimeter]

Agreed, and I think we're arguing semantics. Following the MEL ops procedure is a given and there are PIC/Dispatcher go/no-go considerations. Goes without saying I think. My point is that MX Controllers don't have the freedom to go rogue and defer items items willy-nilly. Either the MEL is legal or it's not. Either the flight is legal for dispatch or its not. There is no controversy.

There’s plenty of times an MEL has a gray area. It’s our job to interpret not just the MELS but how it affects the specific flight and down line flying. For instance, several months ago I had an ATL to LAX on a 737. Usually no problem, but it had a center fuel tank pump on MEL. The flight the MEL was applied to was DFW ATL. This MEL is perfectly legal, but no one looked at downline flying. If all parties just thought this a/c went from back forth to DFW from ATL no issues, but our schedule didn’t work that way. So now I’m planning a flight with a 20K MZFW penalty, On a four hour flight, requiring an alternate. I planned that flight legally by kicking 25 or so Pax off. So while everything is legal, it’s up to us sometimes to say this isn’t a good business decision because we’re going to leave pax or etc. I don’t just focus on legal or not, but try and make good common sense business decisions on behalf of the company. Not all Go/No-Go items are explicit.

 

[MIADX]

There’s plenty of times an MEL has a gray area. It’s our job to interpret not just the MELS but how it affects the specific flight and down line flying. For instance, several months ago I had an ATL to LAX on a 737. Usually no problem, but it had a center fuel tank pump on MEL. The flight the MEL was applied to was DFW ATL. This MEL is perfectly legal, but no one looked at downline flying. If all parties just thought this a/c went from back forth to DFW from ATL no issues, but our schedule didn’t work that way. So now I’m planning a flight with a 20K MZFW penalty, On a four hour flight, requiring an alternate. I planned that flight legally by kicking 25 or so Pax off. So while everything is legal, it’s up to us sometimes to say this isn’t a good business decision because we’re going to leave pax or etc. I don’t just focus on legal or not, but try and make good common sense business decisions on behalf of the company. Not all Go/No-Go items are explicit.

I completely understand that, but no certificate action could be taken in that situation because nothing you did was illegal if it was in accordance with approved procedures. It would just be bad for business. The post that I responded to seemed to be insinuating that MX Control would try to pull sketchy stuff off and that you had to look out for their tricks lest you put your certificate at risk. If you stick to the manuals and Regs it won't happen. Operational/downline considerations are a whole 'nother ball of wax (and we are in agreement there) but not at all what I was initially responding to.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

There’s plenty of times an MEL has a gray area. It’s our job to interpret not just the MELS but how it affects the specific flight and down line flying. For instance, several months ago I had an ATL to LAX on a 737. Usually no problem, but it had a center fuel tank pump on MEL. The flight the MEL was applied to was DFW ATL. This MEL is perfectly legal, but no one looked at downline flying. If all parties just thought this a/c went from back forth to DFW from ATL no issues, but our schedule didn’t work that way. So now I’m planning a flight with a 20K MZFW penalty, On a four hour flight, requiring an alternate. I planned that flight legally by kicking 25 or so Pax off. So while everything is legal, it’s up to us sometimes to say this isn’t a good business decision because we’re going to leave pax or etc. I don’t just focus on legal or not, but try and make good common sense business decisions on behalf of the company. Not all Go/No-Go items are explicit.

Exactly. Now consider a green DX with nobody to help them as is the case at a rag tag Supplemental Carrier.

 

[SteamgaugeSweetie]

I completely understand that, but no certificate action could be taken in that situation because nothing you did was illegal if it was in accordance with approved procedures. It would just be bad for business. The post that I responded to seemed to be insinuating that MX Control would try to pull sketchy stuff off and that you had to look out for their tricks lest you put your certificate at risk. If you stick to the manuals and Regs it won't happen. Operational/downline considerations are a whole 'nother ball of wax (and we are in agreement there) but not at all what I was initially responding to.

It's the MX Supervisors that usually pull stunts like that because they don't want to "eat" a delay. It's bad for their performance review. Those types routinely throw their own A&P's under the bus by pressuring them to sign off stuff they shouldn't, etc. Not all of them are that way. And I have seen them come into Ops whining to the controllers too.

 

[Altimeter]

I completely understand that, but no certificate action could be taken in that situation because nothing you did was illegal if it was in accordance with approved procedures. It would just be bad for business. The post that I responded to seemed to be insinuating that MX Control would try to pull sketchy stuff off and that you had to look out for their tricks lest you put your certificate at risk. If you stick to the manuals and Regs it won't happen. Operational/downline considerations are a whole 'nother ball of wax (and we are in agreement there) but not at all what I was initially responding to.

Oh, then yes I agree. Legal and right are not mutually exclusive.

 

[who'swho]

Exactly. Now consider a green DX with nobody to help them as is the case at a rag tag Supplemental Carrier.

Since when did "rag tag" supplementals have poor dispatch training? The FAA has to sign off on the training program. MELs are always legal to be applied (hence they are an MEL). Whether they work for that particular flight or not... different story. It will be few and far between the situation at a supplemental when there is only 1 green dispatcher on shift. Probably less than .01% of all dispatch shifts in the U.S. that day.

 

[R2D]

Exactly. Now consider a green DX with nobody to help them as is the case at a rag tag Supplemental Carrier.

I don't work at a supplemental, but I don't consider them ragtag.