The standing agreements are there to ensure that traffic is presented to the next ATC sector in an acceptable fashion without handing over each individual track. They are not there for crew descent planning, or to plan arrival/departure routes. That is the purpose of a SID/STAR. Most SID's and STARS are designed to take into account of these standing agreements i.e. the FL260 restriction at MARGO heading up North.
Yes I'm not disputing your point, it would be nice however as Ive stated before to have a clearer idea of what to expect! Ultimately the one time we don't want to be heads down adding or removing restrictions..re-routes etc as we get something unexpected
I would advocate that you do not query instructions given by ATC over the RT, or question the rationale behind it. If it affects you as operators to the degree that you infer by your Ops department not planning in sufficient fuel to take tactical ATC instructions, either file a Safety Report, MOR, or raise it as a safety/policy issue with your ops department.
Couple of things here.......If I get an ATC instruction that I don't think is safe or clear, I'm certainly going to query it
Secondly, yes it does affect EVERY operator to a lesser or greater degree, most of the time planning contingencies are such that it doesn't cause any undue concern..furthermore, aircrew hopefully take the time to read the notams produced each day to get as clear a picture of whats going on that particular day.
I go back to my point again however..why the big secret? can't you ATCO's just accept that by giving us the information it helps us as well?