Wiley, sure, I agree - you're paid to get the pax on the ground safely. And I understand and basically agree with what you're saying.
However, I was replying to your first post - that's all I had to go on - and you clearly stated ."
when I reach that magic figure of min divert fuel, (a figure I calculate AND BRIEF exactly on every approach), they have to understand that I’m out of there and on my way to the diversion field. End of story – and no commercial considerations even vaguely figure in my calculations.
So, hey, that's what I was replying to.
I agree that the use of the other runway as an alternate has to be considered very carefully.
But I still think it's very easy to think of the diversion as a magic way out - instead, we get there with minimum fuel, and we're faced with the same scary approach. (Talking about the two runway at destination option here.)
Whatever way you look it, the regulations and company policy can conspire to create a situation where our time in the air is limited. And it doesn't matter how much extra you take - you can still find yourself left with very little. I'm sure we've all been aware of big delays, taken what we thought was adequate and still been left with very little.
Unless you divert with fuel well above company fuel to initiate a diversion, you'll still be time limited on reaching your diversion.
Maybe we're saying the same thing, but in different ways!!
('cos I'm definitely not advocating flying 'round on fumes.)