Sabre Dispatch Monitor

flynryan692

Well-Known Member
That’s ridiculous! It either calculates a release that complies with all applicable regulations or it doesn’t. If the FAA believes there is noncompliance or deems it unsafe, they would compel the airline to fix it or cease using it immediately.
The lack of support for the application as well as the database is a security problem, and a potential data loss problem. Over time programming languages are updated and certain functions and methods become deprecated causing them to no longer work, so as the OS is updated and the framework is update at some point it's going to stop functioning correctly. That's fine if it causes a bug that throws an error, maybe Sabre helps with that (lol no they won't), that's a dangerous situation if it produces a silent bug and uses erroneous data. Aerodata had a brief silent bug that return incorrect vspeeds and led to an aircraft rotating too early and stalling, and that's "modern" software being actively developed. When was the last time DM was compiled? '05, '06' perhaps '11 or '12 if we're being generous? That's a long time ago, eventually it's just not going to work right. I'm sure the FAA doesn't think about it as deeply as this, but no support from the manufacturer means it is time to move on, simple as that.

There's not a valid reason in the world to continue to support DM. It had its day, it's time to move on. Yes the FAA can do that because they are the FAA, what's confusing about that?
 

FlyingSioux1

Well-Known Member
The lack of support for the application as well as the database is a security problem, and a potential data loss problem. Over time programming languages are updated and certain functions and methods become deprecated causing them to no longer work, so as the OS is updated and the framework is update at some point it's going to stop functioning correctly. That's fine if it causes a bug that throws an error, maybe Sabre helps with that (lol no they won't), that's a dangerous situation if it produces a silent bug and uses erroneous data. Aerodata had a brief silent bug that return incorrect vspeeds and led to an aircraft rotating too early and stalling, and that's "modern" software being actively developed. When was the last time DM was compiled? '05, '06' perhaps '11 or '12 if we're being generous? That's a long time ago, eventually it's just not going to work right. I'm sure the FAA doesn't think about it as deeply as this, but no support from the manufacturer means it is time to move on, simple as that.

There's not a valid reason in the world to continue to support DM. It had its day, it's time to move on. Yes the FAA can do that because they are the FAA, what's confusing about that?
Another issue is each time they "fix" it, they would patch on top of the original code. There are now so many layers over what it was that you fix "A" which breaks "B", "C" and maybe (probably) "D".
 

alpine1989

Well-Known Member
The lack of support for the application as well as the database is a security problem, and a potential data loss problem. Over time programming languages are updated and certain functions and methods become deprecated causing them to no longer work, so as the OS is updated and the framework is update at some point it's going to stop functioning correctly. That's fine if it causes a bug that throws an error, maybe Sabre helps with that (lol no they won't), that's a dangerous situation if it produces a silent bug and uses erroneous data. Aerodata had a brief silent bug that return incorrect vspeeds and led to an aircraft rotating too early and stalling, and that's "modern" software being actively developed. When was the last time DM was compiled? '05, '06' perhaps '11 or '12 if we're being generous? That's a long time ago, eventually it's just not going to work right. I'm sure the FAA doesn't think about it as deeply as this, but no support from the manufacturer means it is time to move on, simple as that.

There's not a valid reason in the world to continue to support DM. It had its day, it's time to move on. Yes the FAA can do that because they are the FAA, what's confusing about that?
I’m assuming you work at at DM carrier. As I said in an earlier post, Sabre announced they were sunsetting DM in 2011. Any airline that elected to stay on DM did it purely for economic reasons. DM is cheap, others not so much. Good luck!
 

flynryan692

Well-Known Member
I’m assuming you work at at DM carrier. As I said in an earlier post, Sabre announced they were sunsetting DM in 2011. Any airline that elected to stay on DM did it purely for economic reasons. DM is cheap, others not so much. Good luck!
Yeah, I'm not contesting that part. I've seen first hand Sabre refuse to help us make a modification for a compliance issue, they really won't do anything to DM at this stage.
 

jynxyjoe

The Kickin' Chicken!
UPS uses Lido so it speaks 121, but with a deep accent. Its bread and butter is for an EASA carrier.

There is no perfect flight planning system, and some suck harder than others. I was a SABRE KU, and once I understood its method to its madness, I actually kinda liked it. Its a decent system IF you train it properly (which few airlines do).

I was at my first DX gig (AWI), freshly signed off, and I have a BA46 going into ORD one day when ATC was giving out free airborne reroutes. Had I had been told that K6 meant the United States for an ICAO code would have made all the difference in the world.

I do miss the EGF JR Mask, the best of 1970s mainframe technology.

SWA signed with FlightKeys a year or so ago, but I know nothing about it.
Lido is great on 6+ hr atlantic crossings, 120pages average and hilarious to print and explain. Better have a laser jet.
 

kalan31

Well-Known Member
That reminded me - I've showed a few people at work this page on Aviation Weather that gives a narrative behind most TAFs. Helpful for summertime Denver and several other places.

Not entirely related, just thought it'd be helpful.
I have used this page as justification for adding an alternate or hold fuel many times when a TAF seems too good to be believed.
 

fsxflyhigh

Well-Known Member
It’s great to see the insights into the thoughts of the forecasters and to see if they are gonna flip the TAF or not
Some days I feel like the discussion should read "We honestly have no clue". Once had a TAF that got amended like 10 times (some were like 20 mins apart). Didn't forecast storms that did happen, called for storms when nothing developed, and had no mention of fog that dropped to CAT II mins on approach. I dug into the discussion to find my college friend was the forecaster that morning. Had to give my friend and her WFO a hard time for that.
 

FlyNKD

Well-Known Member
Is there a reason why any existing airlines on DM haven't moved up to FPM automatically just to keep a Sabre product in the OCC? Or is FPM that much different from DM that its worth looking at the other providers?
 
Top