Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Parked
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Destination airport ZZZZ was temporarily closed due to thunderstorms. With more than 20 aircraft ahead there was no chance of landing during the next lull after which more cells were bearing down on the airport. ZZZZ1; although not closed; was also reporting storms. ZZZZ2 was closed. We consulted with the dispatcher and diverted to ZZZZ3.By itself the above events don't merit a report. The facts imply no regulatory or safety concerns. However; this report is not about a simple divert; but interference and misinformation that contaminated the process. Well on our way to ZZZZ3 we received a dispatcher message that the Operations Manager preferred we divert to ZZZZ4. I strongly support a dispatcher's willingness to utilize various resources and inputs to inform his input and recommendations. I even understand; particularly if caught unaware; that his initial opinion might change. But this message was noteworthy in that the Dispatcher conspicuously eschewed ownership but passed it along anyway.The Ops Manager's preference was not the safest alternative or even remotely equivalent. Case closed. An unplanned border crossing between hostile countries is a risky endeavor. More likely than not; ZZZZ4 would simply deny incursion. Landing a United States airplane and crew [on foreign soil] should not be taken lightly. And only dire circumstances merit taking a planeload of [foreign] nationals to ZZZZ3. Such issues impose risk for the plane; passengers and crew. Even the best outcome would ultimately require Captain's authority to escape. By my estimation the best case would be for ZZZZ3 authorities; after some delay for interrogation; to insist that the airplane depart. I would have no choice but exercise emergency authority to exceed regulatory duty limits notwithstanding certain fatigue. After I rejected the alternative; the Dispatcher passed a message from the Ops Manager that ZZZZ3 would not allow us to land. Purportedly; they had too many airplanes on the ground already. If we persisted to ZZZZ3 landing clearance would only be given for [priority status]. I replied with a willingness to oblige; if necessary. But I was not persuaded by the twisted logic that ZZZZ3 would turn us away and ZZZZ4 would welcome an incursion with open arms. Next we were warned that customs would not clear the flight in ZZZZ3 and occupants would be required to remain onboard. This also did not persuade me to reverse course to [departure airport]. Of course; in reality we encountered no resistance from Air Traffic Control. Safely on the ground I now welcomed input from the Ops Manager. I spoke directly to her. Surprisingly; the discussion revealed her to be a very intelligent woman. So I doubt she was oblivious to the challenges diverting would create.She blamed our staff in ZZZZ3 for prior misinformation but was adamant about her second warning that neither passengers nor crew would be allowed to deplane. On that basis; to keep the option alive; we prepared for a possible return. However; a return flight could only be conducted under [my] authority as doing so would exceed regulatory duty limits. So I also obtained documents authorizing regulatory exemption on the premise that passengers and crew were hostage to the aircraft. More than a little suspicious of information being passed; I let it be known I would independently verify the facilitation issue. And when time allowed I did exactly that. The reality was again much different than what had been represented. I was told passengers and crew could all deplane. However; there was some noise about immigration officials possibly holding passports of deplaning occupants but this; too; was soon resolved. I again spoke directly to the Ops Manager. When informed that deplaning would be allowed with the possible holding of passports she said that's what she meant when she warned ZZZZ3 would not clear the flight. She claimed that equated to occupants being hostage on theaircraft. From a regulatory perspective; allowing crewmembers to deplane into crew rest is the polar opposite of forcing the crew to remain on the airplane. The actual circumstance did not qualify for regulatory exemption. I immediately ceased all efforts to further extend duty under the regulatory exemption. We had been on duty for 21 hours and 44 minutes when the return to [destination] was cancelled. The flight was planned for 2 hours and 9 minutes.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported diverting because of thunderstorms. After almost 22 hours on duty; the crew ceased attempting to get clearance to destination; a 2 hour flight; despite company personnel threats about dire consequences for failing to depart.