ATC APPEAR to want to put us at our maximum achievable level
Ok, look at that statement from an ATC point of view. You have said that that is your maximum achievable level on this particular flight (bearing in mind that you have made that statement based on your own reading of winds, weight, turbulence etc for that particular flight). So, ATC will assume that, unless you say otherwise, at some point in your flight you can climb to that level. Remember, that we already know what your maximum level attainable for your type, generally, is. So, is it not unreasonable for ATC to ask you, at some point in your particular flight, when you can climb to your stated maximum achievable level?
I think, maybe, this is one of those boxes that is filled in without proper thought being made to the consequences i.e. actually being asked to climb to that level. Just my own thought, happy to be corrected.
If you don't think you would be happy, from an efficiency point of view, climbing to that maximum achievable level, then file a maximum achievable level that you will be happy at. No one will criticise you. But at least ATC have a level that they know you are happy to be at or climb to. It all boils down to communication. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
The trouble is that Middle Eastern airlines have something like 450 aircraft on order and which will be delivered in the next few years, quite a few of which will be scheduled on Gulf direct North America and return flights. Of course, by the time they enter the NAT track structure they will have burned off enough fuel to be at their optimum levels. So, although currently, your maximum achievable level may not necessarily be your most fuel efficient, it may be more fuel efficient than a much lower level.
That's a dilemna, I would suggest, you need to pose to your company, because the situation is changing very rapidly.
If you really want to see where the competition for levels is going to come from in the near future have a look at Chinas' latest 5 year plan, their 12th. 2011 - 2016, particularly the growth plan for aviation. They are building 45 new airports, plus they are taking 25% of the total production of Boeing and Airbus for the next 10 years. My guess is that some of those may also be entering the NAT track structure at optimum levels.
We live in interesting times, as the Chinese say.
On the beach