Clown (how apt)
Can we please just draw a line under this ridiculous notion that Flex/Assumed Temp thrust reduction is in some way unsafe.
I think you are confusing "unsafe" and "increased risk". If you cannot see that there is an
increased risk in using reduced thrust that delays rotation until near the end of the available runway for every take off, then I would ask YOU to kindly desist posting.
No one has answered this: Is the increase in risk associated with reducing the thrust for take-off balanced against the decrease in risk (as outlined in the Clown's post) AND the commercial benefit?
If it is, surely as PIC (and the acceptor of the risk), you are aware of the numbers involved, or your employer has told you not to worry, as THEY accept the risk on your behalf?