Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While preflighting a stub flight we received an amended flight plan from Dispatch. The Dispatcher said that there was a bend in the flight plan and that he wanted to remove that. Because this was a stub flight our application struggled to upload the correct flight plan. It kept wanting to upload our original flight plan. The PACOTS east routing (Pacific Organized Track System) for that day was our original flight plan which had us departing the 130W longitude for DACEM onward to pick up the IRNMN arrival into LAX. However the Dispatcher rerouted us to fly from 140W bypassing 130W to begin an arrival using the RYDER arrival. This confused not only us but departure Area Control who had our original flight plan in their system. We departed the gate with the correct uploaded ATC flight plan but possessed on our iPads the amended flight plan from Dispatch... in addition our FO (First Officer) refused to coordinate with Dispatch to revise our our flight plan to its original format which resulted in erroneous flight progress forms from ACARS. To be clear the flight plan only deviated towards the latter end of the flight with the confusion resulting from the Dispatcher uploading an erroneous flight plan to remove a bend in the flight however that was not loaded to the PACOTS east routing for the day. Our FO contacted SFO radio to confirm our routing was correct with our FMS but neglected to inform Dispatch who thought we were still flying the amended route he had given us. It would be helpful if the company would provide guidance regarding how procedurally they would prefer crews coordinate changes to flight plans with ATC. Do they prefer we coordinate with ATC directly or would they prefer that we contact Dispatch and ask that they upload the correct route and that we check it with ATC. It would seem there is a loophole in regards to keeping Dispatch up to speed on changes to flight plans. I believe there is language in the FOM regarding any changes to the flight plan to notify Dispatch of those changes. In this case the changes were minimal however the arrival time differed by about 6-8 minutes from the original flight plan and the amended one from Dispatch. Dispatch was unaware that this stub flight was not flying the amended flight plan they sent us. When I; as the relief pilot; arrived from my break on the flight deck I noticed the erroneous flight progress forms and notified Dispatch who then sent us the revised flight plan. Dispatch was unaware that we were back on our original PACOTS routing. This was accomplished 2+45 into the flight. However if I had not done this it would not have gotten done as the FO refused to contact Dispatch to clear up the confusion. please advise. The First Officer refused input from both the Captain and myself; the relief pilot; to contact Dispatch and get them in the loop regarding discrepancies from filed flights from amended ones. Stub flights caused more confusion than necessary. Clear guidance is needed from company on how they prefer the crew to remedy route discrepancies from Dispatch versus filed. Do they prefer the crew to contact ATC and fix the problem ourselves or do they prefer Dispatch to get involved and fix the discrepancy.


Second narrative: Just prior to pushback; we received a message from Dispatch with regards to a change in our flight planned route. We delayed pushback until receiving new flight plan. Only change was to end of route after waypoint at 140W. We then called Clearance Delivery and did a full route verification. They still only had the original; unchanged route. Since the only discrepancy between the flight plans was at the end of the flight; we opted to depart. After departure; we received the flight progress report that showed the modified route (after 140W). During flight; after checking in with San Francisco ARINC; we asked for a verification of our cleared routed. ARINC verified it was the original flight planned route. We then sent a message to Dispatch with our cleared route and received an update. Dispatch believed we requested a look at modifying our route to remove a 'dog leg' segment from our route which we hadn't.  We were a STUB flight and that might have been a factor as the original flight was near to the arrival time. The change to our flight plan wasn't requested and wasn't essential to safety. Unless critical to flight safety; last minute changes to flight plans (especially international) can cause miscommunications and errors in navigation and should be avoided.


Synopsis: B-777 flight crew reported difficulty resolving discrepancies between the flight plan provided by Dispatch and the received clearance for a trans-Pacific flight.