QANTAS has an one particular SOP markedly in contradiction to Boeing. In the B737 series aborted take off procedure, Boeing go for manual speed brake whereas QANTAS, in it's infinite wisdom, use the reverse thrust lever operation as as the primary means of getting the autospeed brake to up. The Boeing philosophy is that manual speed brake actuation for abort is primary with reverse thrust lever actuation as back-up. The problem with the QANTAS policy is that if the automatic function of the speed brake is inoperative there is no way of telling before the abort and precious max braking time is lost while the captain puzzles why the actuation of the reverse levers did not operate the speed brake.
In addition it may be quite dangerous to select reverse thrust during an abort if the engine selected is on fire. The British Air Tours B737 fatal at Manchester many years ago proved that conclusively. Leaking fuel was atomised by the reverse thrust plume and thus caused a major conflagration which ultimately killed many passengers. This point was made in the Accident Report.
While Boeing may issue a No Technical Objection (NTO) statement when an operator wishes to change a stated Boeing procedure, I wonder if that exposes an operator to litigation from Boeing in event of an incident in which the company procedure was a causal factor in damage or injury?