I saw that. This discussion on brakes has morphed into flaps too.

I would estimate that we are going to use more runway if we come in with a higher approach speed.

I would prefer to:
A. use less runway as a rule of thumb
B. have a more predictable and consistent deck angle/sight picture
C. Only change this if gusty conditions dictate
D. work the brakes less as a rule of thumb by flying a slower approach speed.
E. minimize risks of tail strike as a rule of thumb

How many gallons per approach from the final approach fix to wheel touchdown are we talking about in a flaps 25 vs. a flaps 30 landing? How many more feet of runway do we use? how many more decibels in volume results from a flaps 30 landing vs. a flaps 25 landing?

The airline is so worried about saving fuel to save money........YO YO. Hey Jeff, what about all the flight cancellations and the real bafoonery and inefficiency in the airline? what about dispatch reliability? what about MX reliability? I would prefer that the bean counters stay out of our flight decks and out of our training department. We don't want the bean counters influencing the way we train for the sake of saving pennies.

In many places we fly we need to nominate turn offs, accurately predict turn offs, and fly into some places with short runways. I really like to have a feel for what the airplane can do so I can predict these things. If it looks like I have that turnoff "made" I can always ease up on braking and/or reverse, but the opposite is most certainly not true......