Hi OS, i guess you meant me by the allways wet performance data thing. Yes, we did that. However we had to still reach a screen height of 35ft and reverse thrust was calculated in. Since it was purely very short haul flying on 737s performance penalties were never an issue at all since we we never reached a weight above 8 tons below certified max weight anyway, and that was with tankering for three sectors. Data was limited to one set of performance data for ease of use and to keep the volume of data in limit, one book was enough for the whole of europe. Oh, derate was not permitted either, only ATM was used, nor did we use improved climb speeds to increase useful load or increase thrust reduction. And it was all done with approval by the relevant authority.
Nowadays we use an EFB with boeings performance tool which in standard settings always combines ATM up to the maximum with derate, improved climb speeds and aft CG options which results in nearly every take off using less than 75% of certified thrust, V1s in the mid-160s and well in the red-white lights with rotation usually deep into the red-red which took some time to get accustomed to. However we now have to distinguish between wet and dry with the normal different screen heights, which after all is only a selection in the program.
I have to say i really do like the old fashioned method, simply because the many restrictions on performance options meant we usually were in the air around mid-runway instead of now less than 300m from its end (even on a 4000m runway) if we do it by the book. I do agree however that for longrange operation where you tend to be much closer to the weight limit the performance penalties for 35ft on wet runways are a big issue, for shorthaul they are usually not.