Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were scheduled to operate to ZZZ as scheduled. While reviewing the departure papers we noticed a company NOTAM that restricted using ZZZ as an alternate for B767s. The Captain called the Dispatcher questioning our ability to operate a B767 into ZZZ. After a brief time on hold; the Captain was assured this only applied to using ZZZ as an alternate we were okay to go to ZZZ. We operated as schedule and continued to operate this pairing the next two nights. We were later informed [Company] discovered that [Ops Specs] only granted authorization for the B767 to use this airport as an alternate.


Second narrative: I was notified via email from Captain [Name] that I was in violation of 14 CFR 121.555 for operating a B767 into ZZZ airport. Apparently at the time [Company] only has the authority to use ZZZ as an alternate airport and not as a destination airport with the B767. I would like this report to include [multiple flights]. On our first flight to ZZZ I called my Dispatcher to ask him about a company NOTAM at the airport. I am going by memory but; the NOTAM said something to the effect of do not use ZZZ as an alternate for the 767 aircraft. Further the NOTAM eluded that the reason not to use ZZZ as an alternate was due to ramp space. After the FO (First Officer) and I diligently reviewed the flight paper work I called the Dispatcher to specifically question the company NOTAM. When questioned about the NOTAM the Dispatcher was not sure what the NOTAM was referencing. He put me on hold and came back later and told me the NOTAM didn't apply to our flight. I then asked off the cuff 'Then we are legal to operate the 767 into ZZZ' the answer was 'yes'. Flight crews have a certain expectation that all of the airports we are dispatched to as a destination or alternate are legal. This should be an automated process handled through the computer system that the dispatchers use. To expect flight crews to check there Ops Spec for each and every flight destination or alternate is asking for human error to creep into play. I would not expect to be dispatched to an airport that is not approved. I would however check if operating a charter flight for example. I believe a complete review of all airports [Company] uses to insure which aircraft are approved is in order. [Company] also needs to develop an automated system in which the dispatcher can readily determine if the specific flight type is approved for that airport. Finally; peak offers many challenges to our operation. Part of peak planning (done well in advance) should include a complete review of airports and operations that are that are being serviced by different equipment than normal.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported having flown to destination that is not authorized per company Ops Specs.