Do the commercial departments weigh up the cost of the risk that reduced thrust take-offs represent, versus the money they save? Everyone assumes they do, but do they?
Clearly, if you are going to severely damage (or worse) an airframe every year or two by planning EVERY take-off to involve rotating at the end of the available runway (and you cannot {as proven} have zero error in such ops= an accepted level of risk/loss), there has to be an enormous benefit in engine life/maintenance to offset.
As PIC and accepting the risk, shouldn't you be privvy to those numbers?