Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our crew was scheduled to fly from ZZZZ to ZZZ. We departed and departure time (OUT time) was verified on the Company page of our FMC Communications display. While awaiting take-off; we were informed that our release had expired. We returned to the ramp and contacted our Dispatcher to coordinate a new destination. No aircraft doors were opened; no fuel was added; no maintenance was performed. Our Dispatcher informed us that we were going to be replanned to either ZZZ1 or ZZZ2. Shortly thereafter our Dispatcher informed us that our new destination was ZZZ1. ZZZZ station personnel informed us that we would not be able to obtain a clearance to either ZZZ1 or ZZZ2 because our company did not have route authority to either of those destinations from ZZZZ. We were informed that we would have to depart with a filed flight plan and clearance to ZZZ; and coordinate a diversion while enroute.While attempting to depart; our new release expired. Our Dispatcher then informed us that we would be replanned to ZZZ2; but that we would still be departing with a filed flight plan and clearance to ZZZ followed by a diversion to ZZZ2. We subsequently departed ZZZZ believing that the plan was to proceed on our filed and cleared routing but to coordinate a diversion to ZZZ2 when in ZZZZ Control airspace. Take-off from ZZZZ occurred and that take-off time (OFF time) was again verified on the Company page of our FMC Communications display. While enroute we were informed by our Dispatcher that our ground time at ZZZZ had been changed by Scheduling; and that we were legal to divert to ZZZ1 rather than ZZZ2. Diversion routing/clearance to ZZZ1 was accomplished with ZZZZ Control.A later review of our sequence schedule showed that an arrival time (IN time) had been entered for our flight at ZZZZ; followed by a second departure time (OUT time) 45 minutes later. This 45 minute ground interruption at ZZZZ appeared to have been entered in order to negate the expired ZZZZ-ZZZ1 release and allow us to divert to ZZZ1 instead of ZZZ2. In addition to the 45 minute ground interruption at ZZZZ; our sequence schedule also showed an unrealistic planned flight time from ZZZZ-ZZZ1; and a canceled flight from ZZZ2-ZZZ1. The flight continued to ZZZ1 and arrived uneventfully. Due to the scheduled long duty day; any delays in loading cargo into the aircraft can cause this to happen again. When we called for pushback at our scheduled departure time we were given a 20 minute gate hold. I don't believe the loading will take so long in the future. This cargo flight is incredibly efficient. Maybe the arrival time for ZZZZ could be a little earlier to help with loading cargo for a on-time departure.


Second narrative: During taxi to depart from ZZZZ to ZZZ we received an ACARS message notifying us of a pending release due to a crew member FAR limitation. I notified ZZZZ ground and they expedited our taxi. Unfortunately two minutes prior to departing we received a message informing us that we were unable to depart to ZZZ due to expiration of the release. We returned to the ramp to hold while consulting with dispatch to plan a new destination. Not wanting to create unknown issues; we remained on the aircraft with the doors closed ready to be re-dispatched. We were informed by ZZZZ station personnel that a departure with a filed destination other than ZZZ would be denied by ZZZZ air traffic control due to lack of a valid route authority to other destinations.While on the ramp; dispatch informed us that the new plan was to change our flight destination to ZZZ1. The flight was replanned and dispatched to ZZZ1; but due to ground delays we were unable to depart before the release for ZZZ1 had expired. This time the Dispatch informed us that we would be replanned and redispatched again with ZZZ2 as a destination.At that point we had only one OUT time. A single OFF time was established upon departure to what we understood to be a destination of ZZZ2. We were later informed we were legal to fly to ZZZ1 instead of ZZZ2. We were informed that this was legal because Scheduling manipulated the taxi and ground hold time at ZZZZ that had elapsed prior to our departure. By establishing an IN time at ZZZZ followed by a second OUT time; they had created a reduction in accumulated flight time of 45 minutes. We speculate that the reason was to create a legal departure to ZZZ1 after the release had expired. These actions put us in an extremely uncomfortable position due to the fact that we are not capable of calculating real time FAR 117 limits and rely on them for accuracy and solutions; neither of which we received. Suggest finding a Dispatcher who is more helpful in this type of situations. Do not manipulate flight times to fix legalities.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported delays in complying with a mandatory OFF time.