ga_trojan
I find that a little hard to believe given that I have seen QF and foreign B744 arrive and depart on 16L/34R.
Last time I looked QF wasn’t a foreign airline. The truth of the matter is that CX and other foreign carriers weren’t allowed to use 16L/34R up until last year. That is a fact. If you have any doubt, go and ask ASA. They were the ones that somehow thought domestic A330’s were different from international.
It remains though that some Asian airlines in particular flatly refuse to land on 16L/34R which is basically giving themselves a competitive advantage even though their aircraft is more than able to handle it.
Horse sh*t. You clearly have a short haul domestic mentality. Some of those Asian carriers you ignorantly berate have just flown 10 hours through the night two crew. Last time I came into Sydney which was very recently I had 30m spare on 34R with medium auto brake. There was no way in hell I was going to accept 34R. And don’t get me started on the A330 brakes and there tendency to get hot especially with medium auto brake.
Except the braking action in your 'heavy' is actually better than my light twin
You must live in a different universe to most of us but I haven’t found a single B737/A320 that needs more landing distance than a “heavy” given the same environmental conditions and MLW.
parabellum
I may be a bit out of date but why not?
Very simply all our newer aircraft aren't fitted with ADF's and as such because of the lack of recency and the lack of aircraft capable of doing them and airports we fly to that actually have NDB approaches the company has removed them as an approved approach.