Tony,
Like they always say - imagine yourself at the enquiry if something had have happened. Say, unexpected turbulence or a climb TCAS RA resulting in a stall. No doubt a recovery would have taken at least several thousand feet. May have resulted in an unusual attitude.
Had something happened, at best you would find yourself sitting in the chief pilot's office having "tea and bikkies" explaining why you, as a crew, chose 410 instead of 370, especially when 370 was available. Even at the lightest weights 370 is not that far from optimum.
I cannot imagine that many of the reasons being "bandied" around this post <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> for proceeding up to 410 would have cut the mustard had something happened. Here are some of the pearlers:
"All this over 100ft" ; . ."seems like he [captain] knew what he was doing"; . ."That FMC , its just a computer and a very crude one at that. It works out lets say max cruise height for example, from the input data it gets from a very limited system environment. Learn to distrust computers and learn procedures from each captain that you fly with" ;. ."That FMC is an old design with dumb logic";. ."I see a lot of fuss made over this 100'" ;
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I have no problem with verifying what the FMC is saying, but surely this should err on the conservative side not the other.
We are talking about a large, jet transport aircraft carrying 400 people. There is no place in the pointy end for needless risk, particularly when there is virtually no potential gain.
Tony, can you remember the a/c weight at the time? Was there any reason not to take 370? Also, engine type? Winds (big ask to remember, I know)?