Narrative:

[We were] given runway 13 by mia approach. I asked for runway 9L (runway 13 is 6;930 ft; runway 9L is 9;000 ft). Runway 9L has always been the primary runway for jet operations. A321 aircraft are not known for great deceleration performance. Mia approach asked why I wanted runway 9L. I answered; 'A321; I want longer runway.' once on fll tower; I was asked to call mia TRACON supervisor. The supervisor stated that a new program was starting at fll to up the hourly count during construction on runway 9R and for expected future growth. All aircraft would use runway 9L for departure and runway 13 for arrival. He said I was hurting their count and operation by using runway 9L. The supervisor had a commitment from the air carrier that all aircraft could land runway 13. I was unable to set a return call from the air carrier safety department to discuss the commitment issue. Why would the air carrier commit to this program? Who at the air carrier would commit to a program of all aircraft using a 6;900 ft runway over a 9;000 ft runway whenever 'legal?' I was told by the supervisor that one air carrier did refuse to participate. Under the FAA safety philosophy that change should be 'safer or as safe;' this does not fly. A jet aircraft landing on a 6;900 ft runway when a 9;000 ft runway is available is not 'safer or as safe.' it may be legal by charts and numbers; but it is not safe.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 Captain reports being assigned Runway 13 for landing at FLL due to construction; which he rejects in favor of Runway 9L. Reporter is informed by ATC that his company had made a commitment that all aircraft arriving FLL could land Runway 13.

Narrative: [We were] given Runway 13 by MIA Approach. I asked for Runway 9L (Runway 13 is 6;930 FT; Runway 9L is 9;000 FT). Runway 9L has always been the primary runway for jet operations. A321 aircraft are not known for great deceleration performance. MIA Approach asked why I wanted Runway 9L. I answered; 'A321; I want longer runway.' Once on FLL Tower; I was asked to call MIA TRACON Supervisor. The Supervisor stated that a new program was starting at FLL to up the hourly count during construction on Runway 9R and for expected future growth. All aircraft would use Runway 9L for departure and Runway 13 for arrival. He said I was hurting their count and operation by using Runway 9L. The Supervisor had a commitment from the air carrier that all aircraft could land Runway 13. I was unable to set a return call from the air carrier safety department to discuss the commitment issue. Why would the air carrier commit to this program? Who at the air carrier would commit to a program of all aircraft using a 6;900 FT runway over a 9;000 FT runway whenever 'legal?' I was told by the Supervisor that one air carrier did refuse to participate. Under the FAA safety philosophy that change should be 'safer or as safe;' this does not fly. A jet aircraft landing on a 6;900 FT runway when a 9;000 FT runway is available is not 'safer or as safe.' It may be legal by charts and numbers; but it is not safe.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.