Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When I came on shift the morning of the flight; there was a Part 91 ferry flight set up for ZZZ-ZZZ1 with Aircraft X.  The nose number was not yet loaded into system; but a few minutes after launching system; the Operations Manager sent me a note that he was waiting for the ferry permit to be issued and once it was; he would enter the N-number into system.  I acknowledged his message.  After getting caught up with my regular flights; I was ready to flight plan the ferry; but it was not yet loaded into the system.  I located the airplane in computer and went ahead and pre-planned everything I wanted; and then waited for system and computer to update.  At around XA:15Z (?); the Operations Manager advised me the plane was loaded and they had the ferry permit in hand.  I loaded the flight into computer; noted the plane was showing Aircraft X; crosschecked all my numbers and released the flight.  Computer was still showing the city pair ZZZ-ZZZ1.  I did not have or see a copy of the ferry permit.  I was not aware the ferry permit was showing a city pair ZZZ-ZZZ2 and was not notified of the discrepancy until that evening.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was in storage in ZZZ. My turnover on my start of shift was that 4 aircraft would need to be emergency returned to service from active storage due to a possible inclement weather forecast; and then maintenance ferried to other stations. My information was that Aircraft X would re-position in ZZZ2; and Aircraft Y would reposition to ZZZ1. These departures were scheduled for [date/time]. Aircraft X had a number of overtime items that were required to be on the arrange meter for the ferry process and ultimately on the ferry document given to the crew in lieu of a maintenance release. The maintenance release is issued by Maintenance Control when all the procedures required by the maintenance ferry process are satisfied. A maintenance release is the normal maintenance release document provided to the crew on departure from a station and is supplied by suitably release qualified Aircraft Maintenance Technicians.Aircraft Y had a mechanical issue and did not depart from ZZZ as the crew were out of time. Aircraft X had an issue with an Engineering Change Repair Authorization (ECRA); accomplished in a vendor maintenance station in ZZZ3. An interior modification was accomplished and alterations to the In Flight Entertainment (IFE) requiring an ECRA to be accomplished to deactivate an air-conditioning component. This was accomplished by an AMT in ZZZ but the sign off was not correct per the ECRA and took a little while to resolve. Once all the items were cleared or determined they were overtime and would remain open; and thus be entered as open items on the maintenance release.The approval from Dispatch and the Operations Manager was issued and received by myself and the maintenance department. All of these documents; and a planning document received previously state the aircrafts destination was ZZZ2. The Maintenance Control duty manager called me and said the aircraft had in fact flown from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and not to ZZZ2 as was the maintenance departments understanding of the airline's requirements. I have attached documents from the Maintenance Ferry process and a planning document to show the requirement and my understanding of the destination being ZZZ2.I do not know; or have any input; into the maintenance planning and operations planning department's requirements for the positioning of aircraft and resources for flight purposes and strategic maintenance planning purposes. The fact that the aircraft did not operate the routing I was informed it was proposed to; the destination I had stated on a very important document; and the maintenance release and landed at ZZZ1 and not ZZZ2 was something of a shock to me. How an International Airline could operate with so little communication and cooperation between such important departments is something I have never encountered in a long career in aviation or my service with the Company.I am also very disappointed that no management individual has spoken to me about the issue. The lack of communication continues.Communication definitely needs to be improved between departments involved in the ferry process and a clear understanding of the issues involved be conveyed to all personnel  participating in the process. When a process as important as the Maintenance Ferry Process is involved individuals should read the documentation provided with that process and concur with all intended statements and requirements.


Synopsis: Dispatcher reported confusion in city pairing used for a Part 91 Ferry Permit; which resulted in the aircraft flying to a different destination airport.