For decades the FAR landing field length required was the actual landing distance divided by 0.60 for destinations and 0.33 for alternates. A hang over from the old CAR regulatory regime. It was 0.70 for piston transports from memory.
Suddenly we are getting 15% margins, zero margins for emergencies, confusion about what constitutes an emergency for landing field calculation purposes, and now this prevarication about which runway is optimum, and which is rolling the statistical dice.
(Think you have a career? Try overrunning the shorter of two runways by ten feet...oh, you were trying to be fair to the other guys? Thanks. Bye. Seriously, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out)
I have had lots of years in the "light twin" arena (what a put-down). I have had the red headed step-child experience of being often shunted over to the drag strip so that my heavy-driving betters could have a leisurely arrival on the real runway. It galled then, a little, when I let it.
Now I am one of those heavieset wankers issuing media releases about my impending stately arrival. I have a fraction of the easy type familiarity that I enjoyed when I used to wear a 737. I am almost always tired, and always cranky. I try not to let that interfere with the timely and efficient flow of traffic such that I am requiring undue excess runway or expeditious arrival taxi. But sometimes I just need it, other times I am rubbed raw after listening to my English level six cohorts all night and just want it in a fit of pique.
In an earlier post I alluded to taxi costs, but that was as a matter of information only. I typically do not give a rat's about incremental savings which will be awarded to some bonus monkey anyway.
By the way...other guys have commented on making 300 metres go away quickly. I am left wondering how they keep their margin of error so tight.
they must fly Boeings?