Originally Posted by flensr

Maybe it's also a bit like why the USAF doesn't permit LAHSO... It benefits everyone except the crew that's put at risk doing the landing, increases the chance of botching the landing or violating the LAHSO clearance, etc. Let someone else absorb that risk or build another runway.

Not being snarky, I understand that accepting LAHSO is part of being a good neighbor at an over-capacity airport but it puts the risk of high volume ATC ops right in the cockpit of the LAHSO participant. I can totally see why any particular company might refuse to accept that risk.