Maybe it would help resolve the issue if ATC stopped asking if they are requesting or do they require the longer runway, spoon feeding them the words?
If the aircraft then advise they are unable to land on 16L/34R or 27 then well and good, they require the longer runway. If they over-run the runway then why did they land if it was not long enough or why were they unable to land on an adequate runway. Airlines are not suppose to be flaming ab initio flying schools, 500 hour pilots in control seats is no excuse for taking the longer runway.
ACMS, many of us also operate Heavy's and Super's (175T is a fuel order btw) and a more than a few of us also work outside the hours of 9-5 but we also understand the difference between request and require. Going into LAX in a Super for the Northern Complex and telling them you require 25L, it would be like one of those Mastercard moments..... priceless.
Time for a big spoon of concrete for some people.
But seriously it always seems to be the same operators pulling this stunt and gazumping the long runway by abusing the system either by ignorance or inability, I don't know which. Perhaps they should train more on their landings to have confidence in their aircraft's capability.