Intruder,
As it happens I agree with you. However there are many strange recommendations given by Boeing hat seem to have no rhyme or reason. For instance pre-flight they require that in the before start procedure all fuel pumps in tanks containing fuel (with certain exceptions for the centre tank) should be switched on even with equal main tanks, with the cross feeds open. Then having checked the upper EICAS if the message "FUEL TANK TO ENG" is displayed then the overide pumps should be switched off and cross feeds closed. This despite the fact that if the cross feeds have been opened in the set up as required there is an advisory "X FEED CONFIG" clearly indicating that the main tanks have an equal amount of fuel in them and do not require the crossfeeds (and therefore overide pumps) open/on. Net result undue wear on the switchlights and overide pumps.
At my previous operator (a launch customer, I suspect Carnage Matey works for them) many Boeing SOPs were ignored in favour of more logical procedures - there was a very large and professional technical department looking after things. An example was that after a few years the procedure of using symmetrical reverse thrust on an RTO or engine-out landing was abandoned and the drill was to use all available reverse thrust. This then gave maximum stopping capability when needed and certainly in the simulator the aircraft was quite controllable even on a wet runway down to 80 kts. with max reverse on one side - what difference to a 2 holer with one out? I do not know if they have fallen into line now, it is 7 1/2 years since I left!
However I am lead to believe that in order to differ from Boeing a difference had to be declared to their technical department which meant they took no responsibilty for the consequences of the differing actions. As a result my present operator have gone for Boeing procedures both technically and operationally - the later with unfortunate consequences for co-pilots who apart from physically flying the aircraft when operating the sector are relegated to the role of system operators with little decision making to do. Of course in practice this may vary due to the requirements and application of CRM but for instance they do not taxi the aircraft.
I can only assume that Boeing have gone for the procedure requiring the greatest commonality between their types, in the above scenario many 737s do not have a tiller on the right hand side so rather than make differences between types they factor it down to the lowest common denominator.
Sorry for the thread drift - not much to do with minimum turning radii, I know.