edit:
Mingalababya,
I'm very sorry to have possibly lead you astray with this post (original still posted below). Despite what I said making sense in the real world it was wrong. The correct answer is that DEPRESSURISED PLANNING TO AN ACCEPTABLE (OR SUITABLE) AERODROME NEVER NEEDS ANY HOLDING FUEL. Not for pre-flight planning and not for in-flight planning. Refer again to page 1-16A specifically Paragraph 12.2) which for DP Ops says where Inter or Tempo are forecast but are not below the landing minima the aerodrome is considered to be "an 'acceptable' aerodrome during these periods and no holding fuel is required."
It's a pretty lousy abuse of the English language but that's what they want. The following paragraph makes another interesting scenario to note (I do not THINK that this is on the exam but it may be) is that they can still make DP Holding fuel reqd if they say that the aerodrome is closed for Inter or Tempo periods due to weather (that's really really really bad weather as in below Landing Minima)
I hope that this clears things up. Sorry if I messed you around. Please find below my original and (almost) un-edited post.
FRQ CB
No, refer to page 1-16A in the 727 manual. It is only the holding fuel for traffic which you will be exempt from carrying (the logic being that if you lose an engine or have suffered a compression failure then ATC will move you to the front of the queue for landing thereby obviating the need for holding fuel)
(Wrong, see above). As the Inter and Tempo are weather induced you must assume that you will arrive and be unable to land and have to hold for that amount of time (in whatever configuration you are in).
(Wrong, see above)
What I think you may be thinking about is the difference between the Contingency Reserve for Normal Ops vs DP (10% vs Nil), the Fixed Reserve for Normal Ops vs OEI or DP (3300kg vs 1500kg or 2250kg) or the fact that there's only need to calculate Fixed Reserve for the alternate aerodrome if it's needed.
The text I am studying explains the first bit really well (I paraphrase):
These rules may sound strange but the logic behind a more stringent alternate requirement for OEI arrivals compared to DP is so that the aircraft with only two engines will always have sufficient fuel to proceed to a Suitable aerodrome (you beaut weather well above minima) and be virtually guranteed of not having to make a OEI missed approach due to not becoming visual. There is no particular performance problem with DP missed approaches and the relaxed weather requirements mean that more airports will be available as alternates for a depressurisation which will ease the fuel critical nature of a depressurisation.
(with apologies to Advanced Flight Theory, Flight Planning, p. 58)
The above applies only to a pilot sitting on the ground making a plan. Once airborne then, and only then, does page 1-16 para 9. come into effect (recalc of Normal Ops fuel requirements).
You're reference to a "depressurization emergency" makes me want to make one pertinent point: It is important to remember that when you plan for these failures there is every expectation that you are going to make an uneventful landing somewhere; you're not not simply making the most of an emergency situation (for the purpose of the ATPL exam these are covered in the very back of the manual and only takes up 3 pages). What we are looking at is handling abnormal operations (the use of the word "Emergency" is intentionally avoided I think) so you don't just go looking to "land immediately regardless of the weather conditions".
For what it's worth...
FRQ CB
PS If anybody thinks I've said something wrong please pipe up and let me (and everybody else reading this) know.
PPS Mingalababya, feel free to PM me and if you're in Perth definitely PM me.