>>What a risk-ridden process stopping upon a contaminated short runway is - even without a braking policy that has nothing to do with stopping safely - but keyed to_turnaround times. Why is that? Well jet engine reverser effectiveness drops off steeply as speed reduces. Even short delays in getting into reverse can eat up a lot of runway at high speed (as the AF A340 proved in Toronto & the QANTAS 747 in BKK).<<
Seems like QF1 at BKK was using the wacky "no reverse" policy that was all the rage in Asia at the time. The idea was that brakes are cheaper than engines so some operators were not even cracking the nacelles on landing to save the engines from spooling up. I remember riding SQ into SIN and watching in amazement as we demoed this on a wet (but long and grooved) runway.
>>Having the brakes come on early, as soon as touchdown occurs, is a good thing under all conditions.<<
Boeing seems to think a few seconds of programmed delay is a good idea at some settings in their widebody twins to prevent pitch instability as the spoilers deploy. Of course, many folks become impatient and kick them off before the four seconds is over (it is the longest four seconds of your life on a short runway <g>).