B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 130; Flight Crew Total 11428; Flight Crew Type 174
Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airspace Structure; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Approach Control cleared us for a Visual Approach to the right runway. We contacted Tower. At 1;500 feet. I noted that a taxiway between the runways was occupied and instructed the First Officer to continue the approach. At 200 feet. we were instructed by Tower to go-around. We executed the go-around and were instructed to fly runway heading and maintain 2000 ft ATC alerted us to traffic directly ahead of us that had just departed. We acknowledged the traffic; which had drifted into our flight path approximately less than a mile and at our altitude. The traffic eventually turned away to the left. We were then instructed to turn right to 5;000 feet and contact Approach. The second approach was uneventful with the exception that the taxiway was again occupied. In my opinion this was a dangerous and unacceptable incident.First; a go-around at low altitude (in this case 200 feet) should only be executed in extreme circumstances. Maneuvering a heavy aircraft that low to the ground is dangerous. I assume we were sent around because the taxiway was occupied. On our second approach the taxiway was again occupied and we were allowed to land. If Tower's concern on the first approach was that the second aircraft on the taxiway was not clear of our runway a simple query would have prevented an unnecessary go-around.Second; during the go-around Tower issued several instructions and made at least two traffic call outs on the aircraft that they had just cleared to takeoff. I answered all of the radio calls; but those radio calls distracted/interrupted my normal flow of procedures and responses to the flying pilot during a critical phase of flight. At one point after answering a radio call I retorted 'we're busy up here.' I needed that time to ensure we had properly configured the aircraft for a go-around as well as set the correct altitude and heading in the MCP.Third; we had the potential for a midair accident. A conflict aircraft had been cleared for takeoff from the left runway just before our aborted landing. This could have easily been avoided when we were five miles out from our runway had Tower cleared the two aircraft holding between the runways to cross the left runway rather than clearing the eventual conflict aircraft to taxi on to and takeoff from the left runway.I am perplexed as to why this incident occurred. Company has issued a bulletin advising that ZZZ has lost a waiver allowing aircraft B757 or larger to hold between runways. On our aborted landing two aircraft were holding and on our successful landing a 777 was holding. Included in this bulletin is the following statement 'This does not apply to every flight and the restriction is based on the aircraft orientation.' In other words; included in the loss of the waiver; is a new waiver...HUH!? If ZZZ lost its waiver to hold large aircraft between runways then I assume it was rescinded for safety concerns. Those safety concerns should not be compromised by ridiculous doublespeak for the sole purpose of increasing arrival/departure rates.
[Report narrative contained no additional information.]
B787 flight crew reported being issued a go-around at low altitude.