Good one bekolblokage, we should send this to all the usual alternates and show them what can be done.
But I feel here that the development of the aviation industry has overtaken the original concept of an alternate. From those heady days of Bermuda 2 and twenty movements a day the alternate conditions are somewhat changed.
As a pilot in those days, if my destination was a bit dodgey , I was always able to go to my alternate, where I might land. I might then disembark passengers and crew, take twelve hours of rest in a good hotel and then continue the next day if the conditions permitted. If I needed only fuel, that was immediately available and within an hour we were on our way.
Fat chance in 2008. There are so many aircraft in the air with so few runways available that the closing of one major airport in most areas of high density traffic will cause major disruption. I do not have the figures here, but presumably when one airport that has 50 movements per hour closes or is only capable of landing say 10% of normal traffic, then 22-25 aircraft that are already airborne need to go somewhere else. To airports that are already slot limited??
A recent Asian diversion case involving several aircraft caused five to seven hour delays, due to visa requirements for the relief crew being flown in. Then crew rest requirements kicked in and no one was allowed to leave the aircraft.
Even if passengers had been allowed off, there were no hotel beds for 1000 passengers within 300km. Some alternate...
A classic case of which I am familiar is Tokyo NRT. If you file Haneda as your alternate, what are your chances of getting a landing slot there? The airport is already slot limited by domestic traffic, so if NRT (effectively single runway until the USA allows Japan to buy Alaskan oil, but let's not go there right now) is closed, by weather or earthquake, where are the thirty odd aircraft in the next hours arrival sequence to go? Most transpac do not have Nagoya fuel and the various military bases around Tokyo that the American carriers say they have "up their sleeve" will fill up in a heartbeat.
As a wise mentor of mine said, the next civil aviation planned ditching will be in Tokyo bay.
We really need to look at the alternate system that we use these days. It was designed for an air traffic flow that no longer exists, and is woefully inadequete for the traffic densities of today. This can start at line operations level but will no doubt require IATA intervention.
Money will be involved. The better financed airlines will be able to pay for and book slots for alternates at convenient airports, requiring less fuel reserves. Less well financed airlines, (not necessarily low cost airlines) will not be able to buy "diversion futures", as they cannot now afford to buy fuel futures, and will suffer the penalty.
The market wins. What do you think?