jb what was the ill conceived company procedure!
They decided to make flap 25 and idle reverse the standard configuration for landing.
The use of full reverse has both engine wear and fuel use considerations The numbers are quite small, but add up across a fleet.
Flap 25 was a funny one. As I understand it, the driver was an issue with flap track cracking, that was accelerated by the use of flap 30. But, around the same time, the carbon brakes were being introduced to replace the steel discs, and it was believed that they lasted better with higher energy inputs, which sounded like rubbish at the time, and I think was proven to be.
Anyway, the use of F25 gave a higher approach speed, and a slightly less speed stable aircraft. Idle reverse, per se, did little harm, as normally there is virtually zero reverse thrust anyway. As you can see, all of this tended to increase brake loads and temperatures. No consideration had been given to the effect of reverse thrust on standing water, and subsequent brake performance.
In itself, none of this is harmful, as long as it's left as a company preference, with the Captains choosing what they want at the time. That's how it is now, and although they have the occasional whinge about people like me (I guess that should be past tense), there is no pressure to change. But, that's not how it was prior to QF1. A substantial percentage of the FOs had never even flown the aircraft with full flap and reverse. It was not being considered as one of many tools within a tool chest. Training were actively marking down pilots who resisted. Basically the management and training pilots, who are generally pretty good, but who get a small fraction of the flying that line pilots do, had stopped listening to anyone outside of the "office". They were living in an echo chamber.