nor North America allow planning without an Alternate except for very restrictive rules in the case of a remote destination.
wizofoz,
I suggest you have a close look at the FARs (both 91 and 121) on the subject, carefully and fully, and then revise your understandings.
In particular, the higher alternate criteria for no alternate on flights up to 6 hours are not particularly restrictive, given US weather patterns, although it is considerably higher than 400'/1600m equivalent.
One of the things that has always exercised my mind, is the number of countries that do not require planning for an en-route engine failure or depressurization, on the basis of them being a very rare event --- I fully understand the risk management logic, but having come from a background of always planning for depressurization and an engine failure en-route -- ???
As to "remote" destinations and "island holding", remote is determined on the basis of practically available alternates. This means that, if alternates are so far away that planning for an alternate makes the operation commercially nonviable, the destination can be approved as a "remote" airport.
This is why, for many years, Perth was a remote airport for "large" aircraft.
even when presented with the fact that every other NAA and
CStall,
No, they don't, see above, and have a look at the actual fuel policies of some longhaul carriers who are smart enough to know the "Qantas" system works, and has worked, with minor variations, for a bleeding long time now.
Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time do not invalidate the statistics that under pin the Australian legislation and CASA approved fuel policies ( and please don't raise the accepted/approved thing).
Tootle pip!!