If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.
Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.
This is what Australia says......
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/235_5.pdf
5.3.3 Two major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, have introduced a new reference for in-flight landing distance performance, catering for both normal and abnormal system operations. The new distances are referred to by Airbus as Operational Landing Distances (OLD) and In-flight Landing Distance (IFLD) whereas Boeing incorporates the actual landing distance in the Performance Inflight section of the Quick Reference Handbook.
Both manufacturers have included this data in their respective performance applications. The actual landing distances are a realistic representation of operationally achievable landing performance.
The representation of this information is generally “unfactored” unless otherwise stated. The CAO 20.7.1B amendment facilitates the adoption of manufacturers’ performance applications along with the application of the 1.15 safety factor. TheCAAP 235-5(0) New performance provisions for CAO 20.7.1B and CAO 20.7.4 5
May 2014 FAA and EASA have adopted the in-flight landing distance factoring as policy, and along with ICAO are in the process of rulemaking.
It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.
There is no evidence that that is the case, esp with CX. Not a single CX pilot on this thread has suggested that is the case. CX has actively been working with ASA for years on ways to make flying into Australia more efficient, and have been been one of the main drivers behind getting 16L/34R opened up to foreign AOC holders.