Originally Posted by
Chris2303
Trip summary says "HKG storms"
One wonders why the decision of the crew, backed up by IOC, is being questioned?
Nope not questioning the crew decision at all, the original question was why they diverted, just for info, but it has morphed into whether or not it is good policy as a matter of course to carry an alternate .
I am in the camp that an alternate should be carried at all times as a contingency plan to cover the unlikely event that for whatever reason you cannot land at your destination.
When you consider that your destination is 8 or 9 hours away and in an area where the wx can change markedly I think its prudent.
I am sure the QF bean counters have worked out that the cost of carrying the extra fuel versus the cost of making the rare diversion puts them in the camp of no alternate fuel required based on the current TAF so be it.