Communication Breakdown
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Flight Crew Diverted
Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
We were scheduled to fly to ZZZ. Upon receiving the release before departure; the weather in ZZZ required an alternate which the dispatcher listed as ZZZ1. However; the forecasted weather at our ETA for ZZZ was 300 overcast which did not meet the requirements for the derived minimums to be a legal alternate. Since we were already fueled; I contacted the dispatcher and inquired why ZZZ1 was listed as an alternate. The dispatcher explained that if we didn't get into ZZZ; he would rather us return to ZZZ1. I explained that was understandable; but ZZZ1 was not a legal alternate. After reviewing the derived minimums with the dispatcher; we selected ZZZ2 as the alternate for dispatch purposes. However; we kept the Pfuel the same so we could divert to ZZZ1 if need be. So in the end; we had two releases; the original release with fuel numbers for the ZZZ1 alternate and the amended release with ZZZ2 listed as an alternate. However we did not change the Pfuel from the original release so we could return to ZZZ1.  Once airborne and approaching ZZZ; my First Officer (FO) picked up the weather via ASOS. I was the flying pilot. He advised me of the weather: 1000 overcast; winds were 12004. The field condition report on the release for ZZZ stated the runway was wet. Please note; prior to departure; the ZZZ winds were forecasted to be only light and variable. After requesting landing data via the ACARS; we saw we did not have the minimum required distance for landing on Runway 27 at our current landing weight. (3kt tailwind component on a wet runway)We were still about 50 miles out and decided to continue in route to see if the winds would shift westerly or abate. We were also very close to having the landing distance and entertained burning roughly 200 lbs to make landing numbers. However; five minutes later; my FO listened to the ASOS again; the winds were now 07004; now a 4kt tailwind. I asked my FO to contact ZZZ operations and verify the runway was indeed wet. ZZZ operations stated the runway was wet. At this point; Center had vectored us onto the localizer. They were aware of our situation; and our runway limitation we were dealing with. I asked the controller if he could verify with tower the runway conditions and winds. He did; ZZZ tower controller advised him the runway was wet and the winds were now 09005. This was now a 5 kt tailwind. At this point; my FO and I determined we could not legally or safely land in ZZZ. We also did not want to compromise our divert fuel by trying to burn the additional fuel to make landing numbers. At that point; we decided to divert due to the current trend of increasing winds shifting to a tailwind on a wet runway. We reviewed the original release and the amended released; verified the fuel on board and fuel burn numbers; and determined we had plenty of fuel to return to ZZZ1 (where our dispatcher wanted us to originally divert to.)During this time; my FO was messaging the dispatcher via the ACARS. His messages essentially explained that we could not land in ZZZ due to a wet runway with the current tailwind component...Runway 9 was not feasible due the ceiling. Additionally; he messaged the dispatcher inquiring if he wanted us to return to ZZZ1 or divert to ZZZ2 . There was a substantial delay in the dispatcher messaging us back which added to the workload and stress. He asked why we were not landing and if something was wrong. He stated the weather he saw showed light and variable winds.  However; he was not getting the true winds from the ASOS and the Tower Controller. He also did not provide us any guidance on where to divert or information outlined [in the] FOM.  He seemed more concerned with rationale as to why we were not landing rather than providing us operational information. After various exchanges with this dispatcher and wasting valuable time; I told my FO to message the dispatcher that we were diverting to ZZZ1 due to winds and a wet runway in ZZZ. Finally; the dispatchermessaged us; 'proceed to ZZZ1...no operational information was appended with the message. Again; we made this decision after reviewing the original release and the amended released; verifying the fuel on board and fuel burn numbers to ZZZ1; and determined we had plenty of fuel to divert to ZZZ1. We landed in safely in ZZZ1with 3200lbs of fuel on board. We made the decision as a crew to divert to ZZZ1: this was a very frustrating and stressful experience that could have been avoided if we had better and faster communication with dispatch. It would have been less stressful if the dispatcher would have assisted with information instead of questioning our rationale while airborne. That took a lot of valuable time. Suggestions: Better training of dispatchers concerning alternate airport requirements and landing performance; improving methods of communication with dispatchers when airborne; the ACARS systems in these aircraft are slow and antiquated; they often loose connectivity when in mountainous terrain...in todays world of smart phones and amazing technology; I am perplexed to why we are still dealing with basic communication issues; dispatchers should assist the crew when airborne; not waste time asking for rationale and explanations about a flight while it is  airborne; there is plenty of time for explanations after the flight safely lands....dispatchers are on the ground and removed from the dynamic and fast changing flight environment; they often do not have the full picture of what is occurring; it is inappropriate for a dispatcher to be questioning and challenging a crew's decision during that time; a crew needs direction; information and assistance.
Air carrier Captain reported that while diverting to an alternate airport; the flight crew encountered difficulty obtaining information and assistance from the dispatcher handling the flight.