For about 45% of our flights we use an alternate close to our home base that has one 2000m runway. It is written in our route documentation that when planning to arrive at this particular airport when the runway is wet and the ZFW is above a certain amount, dispatch will add additional fuel because a flaps 20 landing could cause the estimated landing distance from the inflight table to exceed what is available. So we don't actually check the inflight tables before dispatch for every flight as a matter of policy, which would be, as you suggest, a bit unnatural, but we do know that at this one place it could be an issue. Even if I wanted to check the dispatch tables for a flaps 20 landing though, I couldn't, because I don't have them. There really aren't any other alternates in our system that would preclude a flaps 20 landing according to either the dispatch or inflight tables, but if there were any doubt in my mind I would be able to adjust the fuel load accordingly, no questions asked. I understand your point about the fact that, on some flights, we plan to arrive at the alternate in a flaps 20 situation even if we use zero contingency fuel, and that it then logically follows that one should be dispatched according to the dispatch requirements. I have to say, however, that don't lose any sleep over it though. I trust that the guys in charge have thought about this sort of thing, and as long as they let me do my job of getting pax from A to B safely, I let them do their job of making sure that the ops manual pleases the regulator. I see it as my right and responsibility to reject any alternate where a safe landing cannot be made according to the expected conditions at my time of arrival there, but with respect to compliance with regulations my obligations stop where the airline's begin.