If the worry was airframe related and the risk was statistically large enough, then surely every manufacturer would have placed a speed limit below 10,000ft or some other reasonable altitude. There is no doubt that bird strikes are a risk, but increasing speed only increases the risk of significant damage following an encounter. It does not significantly increase the likelihood of the encounter itself. So, the significant, damaging, bird strike risk must be acceptably low if maufacturers have not applied general speed limits.
I for one, given the opportunity, will always increase speed to the best econ climb speed as soon as I am able. Many do not agree with this practice.
But, my previous question, related specifically to those who are happy to fly at high speed below 10,000ft with everything working, but suddenly want to slow down when the window heat fails, even though the aircraft manufacturer does not state any extra limitations whatsoever.
So, do these people have a point? Or are they falling back onto outdated theory and practice from previous machinery? Can my Airbus creep up on an unsuspecting bird from behind at 340 Knots and give it a slap with it's cold, unheated windshield and have nothing more than mess to deal with?