Thanks GF and Okie. I am getting a clearer picture from the ex-lite folks than the steeped heavy folks.
Despite my basic views of auto-throttle, I can tellya that if trying to get absolute best range in the SLUF, we would gradually pull the throttle back using the TOT ( turbine outlet temp, not EGT). The deal was as TAS wnet up, we would pull back 3 degrees of temp at a time. I forget the increase in TAS we used. But once flew from McChord to The Beach unrefueled using four bags and step climbing like the heavies seem to do for long hauls. An auto throttle rule based on mach and altitude hold would have been nice. Seems Concorde was only heavy that let altitude increase to get the best performance. Ditto for SR-71.
My main concern is if the throttle moving or not, and then the modes where the thing isn't really doing anything and the pilot thinks the sucker is working, but ain't. So think Asiana. My buddy that flew B757 and then B747 said it was easy to tell if the thing was working, as the throttle moved. 'course, he was one that kept his right hand on the throttles.
My focus upon AoA is that for a given configuration, then it is a great cross check for the calculated speed. We lites didn't have a hundred thousand pounds or more of basic weight, so a 1,000 pounds of gas was significant. After a quick WAG and rules of thuimb from the flight manual, it was comforting to see the optimum AoA in the HUD agree with the calculation. From then, you only needed to glance at speed every few seconds, and the flare was also easier looking at the AoA next to the flight path marker.
Thanks to all so far, but I still have questions about implementations and company philosophy.