if the wonderful system gave the operator 'less delay' alternatives as an automatic option (which can then be balanced cost/time/fuel wise by the operator concerned), and accepted or rejected by the appropriate Ops departmnent, then perhaps they wouldn't have to 'ghost' the system trying to reduce their delays.
No automatic rerouting option exists, even though the AOWIR option in way some fills that role. However for more detail on that we need someone from across the corridor; if flowman or someone else from FMO is around, you wanna help out with this one?
There are huge implications to running delays - cost,
PR (delays are published VERY publicly these days), crew hours complications etc. I don't see why companies are at fault for TRYING to reduce them. I do however agree that many flight plans for the same flight are not acceptable. The need to 'ghost' one however obviously is - but operators MUST ensure that only one is there and either the original or the ghost is cancelled immediately the delay balance on the alternative route is decided.
I know how/why/when it happens. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (then got smart and left the job in Airline Ops
).
My rant on the original post was about people clogging up the system with fictional data that justs sit there, making a bad situation worse for themselfs and others.
Bottom line is if the system software is good enough to offer 'less delay choice' then operators wouldn't stab in the dark trying to establish better alternatives.
Bottom line is if the automated systems were good enough to fly the aircraft in all situations then airlines wouldn't have to spend all that money paying you guys to sit on the pointy end of the aluminium tubes
.
DO NOT crucify me. That was a, feeble I grant you, attemp at being funny
New systems are in the works, and will eventually come about. In the mean time we all have to live with what we've got.
Which incidently is A LOT better than what everybody had 15 years ago.