On our 747-400's we rotate at a steady rate of 2deg/sec towards 15 deg NU before following the FD. Note: is towards, not to 15NU, and often about 12.5deg NU works out right using reduced thrust at normal operating weights.

When operating at 390+tonnes the FD will kick in and stop you at 12.5 deg NU or thereabouts anyway.

As to minimising the tailstrike risk, I understand that this is best achieved by following the same/correct rate of rotation at all weights irrespective of the runway length, and can confirm that it works well using reduced thrust ex Boston 09 and O'Hare 04L as well as Joberg and Mexico and Singapore and Narita and and and ...

It is about time that some people realise that the performance manuals are written by the test pilots for us mere mortals to follow. If you don't then you are volunteering to be test pilots yourselves but without the training (and possibly skills). If you have real concerns about the operating weights you should really address that with your company rather than devise your own unproven variations on your FCOM's, imho.

On our 737-200's we used to have various noise abatement techniques at various times, one sounds similar to the SNA technique: we used to take off with Flaps1 using reduced thrust (say about 1.92 EPR iirc) to 1500ft agl, then reduce to 1.55 EPR and maintain V2+10? to 3000ft agl before resuming acceleration. With the (lovely) noise the JT8D-15's made, the power (and noise) reduction was enough to make passengers think the engines had failed, and we used to warn them in advance that it would happen.