Question for 787 pilots

[Octane]

Sorry if this thread is in the wrong place, wasn't sure where to post it..

Next year Qantas plans to operate the 787 direct Perth to London, a 17 hour flight. One issue being discussed is that if on the return flight and Perth airport was unavailable for some reason, the nearest alternates are Learmonth, 1097 km away or Adelaide 2117 km away.
But RAAF Pearce is only 50 or so km north of Perth. Googling shows that Pearce runway 016L/36R is 2439 m or 8000 ft long. Reading the 787 runway requirements on the Boeing website seem to indicate these distances would be adequate for safe landings for the 787 aircraft. Is this the case, have I understood the data correctly? If so, why could Pearce not be considered an alternate in the unlikely case of emergency? P3 Orions operate out of Pearce so I'm assuming all the required nav aids would be available?
I'm aware that I haven't considered the weight carrying capabilities of the Pearce runway versus weight of the 787 but at least it would get down safely?
Or do I have it all wrong?

Thanks

[Capn Bloggs]

Pearce is too close to Perth; it is affected by the same weather eg fog, thunderstorms. If there are requirements on Perth, there will normally be the same requirements on Pearce, which doesn't have a Cat 3 ILS.

If it's an emergency, Kalgoorlie would probably be OK. It's only a 787, after all (any probably a very light one at that).

PS: I'm not a 787 pilot! :ouch:

[BuzzBox]

Hey Capn Bloggs,

Just curious, but what's QF's policy re planning Learmonth as an international alternate for Perth? I work for an overseas airline and we can't plan Learmonth as an alternate due to the lack of RFF. We can, however, use it if we get caught out by unforecast weather in Perth.

[Capn Bloggs]

Don't know, Buzz, not QF-employed!