I haven't argued that readers can't make meta-sense of "the Avengers aren't here because they're also superheroes and can't be everywhere at once", I'm not sure why you keep assuming the worst of my point-of-view or argument. I didn't say "all" or "even most" or that it needed to be constant and X-fans weren't the ones who raised the question of where the Avengers are when the X-Men could use their help - it was Marvel. They chose to make a deal out of it, they chose to have the teams antagonize each other, and they chose to have the X-Men be mistreated in and out of the comics.
I might agree with some of the sentiments expressed by my more ardent peers, but that doesn't mean I agree with every point made; I don't think that the Avengers are apathetic, but I'm wary of interactions between most teams because Marvel hasn't instilled in me confidence that they can juggle those narratives and characters successfully. The most recent example is in X-Men Red, where the Avengers arrive to lend Jean and her team a hand against Cassandra, and you know what? I disliked plenty of other things in the issue, but their inclusion there made narrative sense - it wasn't a masterpiece move, but it was good use of the characters without interrupting any major narratives.
They don't need to coordinate to the Nth degree, I hope you don't believe that I think that, but any improvement in Marvel's editorial oversight would be refreshing.
That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Maybe it's not too much to ask that editors work together so there isn't minor contradictions across books? Maybe it's not too much to ask that Marvel not ignore character and team histories because it's convenient for them? That's kind of editorial's job.