I have no idea whether the supposed event that this thread is named about took place (or not) but I have to reassure those who don't fly for a living (and maybe some of those that do
) that taking off / landing on a runway with less than its normal declared distance is a fairly common procedure.
There are many airports in the world that currently have NOTAMS describing partial runway closures (affects LDA/TORA/TODA...) and temporary cranes, etc. in works (affects the obstacle surfaces for T/O, landing and G/A). Here's a current one for BOM (VABB):
REVISED DECLARED DIST AS FLW TIL JUN011130
RWY 09 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 3050
27 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 2965
14 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2471
32 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2673
RWY 32. Drilling rig erected 82ft AGL approx 382m N of Rwy14 THR. Eff 1430-2359Jan27 and 0030-0300 1430-2359 daily 28Jan til 30Mar.
If you're flying your own aeroplane or work for a small company, you'll probably get the books out and check, or if you're lucky, use a performance tool approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Major airlines generally have dedicated staff who can provide revised specific performance data at short notice, even if it's an aircraft stuck in the mud at the end of the runway.
At the end of the day, whether it's an aeroplane, runway resurfacing, building works or a lame giraffe, it can be taken account of in the proper manner. It is a total non-issue, as long as the position / vertical extent of whatever it is that's causing the problem is known. You can always be conservative and use the most adverse likely measurements in the calculations.
If you've ever used reduced thrust, taken off from an intersection or landed over an inset threshold, then you should have no qualms about operating to and from an airfield with quantified temporary obstructions of whatever nature. [/rant]