Wow...this really is a first world problem to discuss on an Internet forum
It is these sort of smart-arse comments as demonstrated by responders No 2 and 3 that turn people away from Pprune. There should be no place in Pprune for sarcasm and ridicule.
Use of idle reverse for all landings might be relevant if noise abatement sensors are installed at some airports such as in Europe and noisy reverse thrust could mean withdrawal of slots at certain airports.
What people tend to forget is that if idle reverse is used after touchdown, especially if the surface is wet or even damp, and braking efficiency reduced, then if the decision is made suddenly to change to full reverse when the pilot belatedly realises that he should have used full reverse earlier, by then speed may have dropped off to the extent that full reverse is now ineffective.
There is evidence of many overseas accidents that have been caused by this policy. The landing end of some runways are often contaminated with rubber which when combined with water on the runway significantly reduces braking efficiency and can cause the tyres to skid.
Reverse thrust thrust is most efficient at high airspeeds and drops off significantly below 60-80 knots. A policy that discourages pilots from using full reverse after touchdown has the potential to lead to crew complacency not to mention hotter brakes.
The FCTM of one well known twin engine transport states in part: "For minimum brake heating select maximum reverse thrust as soon as possible after main gear touch down. The intention is to use reverse thrust as the major force that stops the airplane. The use of maximum reverse thrust further minimizes brake heating".