Thanks for the reasoned replies. However, there seem to be a lot of people missing the point, not the least of whom is the Clown
The fact are that there is no greater risk of Flex/Assumed Temp departures when done correctly.
You really cannot see what is wrong with that statement? "Things are perfectly safe unless they go wrong". Abusing people because you cant actually put up facts as counter argument might show a certain party as being the idiot.
What about departures at MAUW or MZFW. Surely they have to carry a greater level of "risk" as they are at the very edge of performance. Let's offload 2 tonnes of freight, actually make that 5 tonnes, just to be sure.
It is very easy to see the cost v. risk posed by offloading freight. It would also be easy to look at the number of events that could've been prevented by operating at less than MAUW (I'd venture to say none, without thinking too much about it, but you never know). The point is that there is a transparent, direct cost in offloading freight, but it appears that flex/derating and any benefits are purely theoretical.
If you are embarrassed because you do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW how much money (read engine wear/maintenance) is saved by using flex, that's fine. I didnt realise it was such a touchy subject. If your company knows, and just doesnt care to tell you and directs you to use flex etc. then the vicarious liability is theirs. In view of the treatment of the crew in this case, the company doesnt appear too keen on wearing that liability. I'm damn sure the insurer in the case of EK407 will be looking at it.