Sunrise - Yes!
Kapt M - Your memory fails you! Yes, Paya Leba the alternate but with top-up to 60 minutes holding which, in effect, meant that KL was always legally possible, also with two useable runways available, good weather etc. then it was permissable to use diversion fuel as destination holding if required - and a lot of airlines do this. And no, no 'please explain' letters required on the -400, just a sensible note on the VR, 'Due Wx' was usually good enough. You're right about the water, officially, but there was always plenty available. As I said before, QF pilots who flew for SQ thought the SQ policy was generous
Don - SQ policy does require them to carry diversion fuel for an alternate. Some airlines don't carry diversion fuel to all destinations but they have a 'don't go beyond' en route airfield and they have to be assured of a no delay arrival at their intended destination to be able to pass that en route airfield.
Wasn't it QF that arrived at LHR once a bit light but still legal?
I know SQ did but they were declared still legal by the CAA once the proper numbers had been crunched.
C of Borg - Not good I grant you but I think you will find it was only one -400, (one too many) and it was questioned by ATC, Don't recall the figure of 18000' either but I may have missed that, I honestly thought it was nearer 5000', still not good.
According to Boeing more airlines world-wide use 1.2 than 1.3.