Exactly. And no controller, certainly in ML tower will question you. I think 'require' is an Australian thing, so you might hear foreign crews requesting an off mode runway. In their case most of us would take that as a requirement too.
The point I was making is that to require a runway because of a preference to land into wind and not have to land with a quartering tailwind will not be an acceptable reason to have the flow changed. I might be able to get it approved for the first couple of times but ATC will be on to my employer PDQ to have my thinking changed. I am fully aware that if I require a runway because of some sort of technical issue then there will be no questions asked, it will just be provided. LP was suggesting that if I was the technical issue and it was the end of a long day then that would be acceptable as well. The problem with that is that the pilots of a certain brightly coloured LCC are
always tired especially at the end of an 11 hour duty approaching midnight. So I go back to my original point that it wouldn't take long for ATC to tell the LCC to stop their pilots requiring runway configurations that are contrary to their flow just because they are tired or have had a long day in the saddle. As a case in point, in the early 90's when QF 767s started operating domestically they were always requiring runway 16R. It didn't take very long before that was stopped as it was pointed out that other widebody operators were quite capable of landing on 16L without having to use any test pilot techniques.