why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?
I am never pressured by our company on operational decision making, OTP and trying to save 400 kg is not a high consideration for me, its the last consideration after safety and comfort. Likewise I will rather go off track 100 nm if necessary, and not worry about the additional fuel or time penalty.
Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?
As I mentioned before, CX had to "communicate" for years with ASA in order to be able to use 16L/34R, CX were only recently granted permission to use it. ASA have different internal rules for international carriers than they do for domestic. International arrivals have different fuel requirements (and alternates available) to the local carriers, often CX will land heavier with more fuel than say a QF flight of the same type on the same route as CX has to use a further away alternate.
Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse.
No its not, everyone knows MEL often when 27 is in use, the wind often has a 20 kt plus crosswind wind with low level mechanical turbulence. It takes very little additional speed due to a low level wind change to eat up 300m, wind change to a tailwind, increased IAS due low level wind shift, ground spoilers failing to arm, crossing the threshold slightly high, miss the hump and have a slightly longer flare, or wet all eat up around 300m on an A330 when heavy.
The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus
How do you know if he used before flight or in flight numbers ?
You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business.
Transport aircraft use a touch down zone. It takes very little additional height crossing the threshold to eat up 300m.
It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".
Often I see domestic carriers use A, E, J for departures "jumping the queue" ahead of of aircraft that taxied before them, or land well before an international carrier after ATC gave them a visual approach. Funny how like with most things in aviation, there is always a bit of give and take, you don't seem to mention the savings you get at times.
I dont harp on when domestic carriers sit so far back on E so that traffic cannot pass behind to get to A. I put the park brake on, let them move forward when they are ready, and then resume my taxi.
More often than not the reason for multiple runway use in Australia is a political one, not ATC operational, its the shared noise model.
So my question to the ATC guys and gals out there is...do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?
I heard a very similar thing going into MEL with China Southern following CX, they could not understand the subtle difference, in the end they said something along the lines, "whatever CX said, we need the same".