>>1273477I ran out of characters, but the ability to land comfortably on runways which are 2.2km or around that allows for budget airlines to use the A321LR for routes between either secondary airports or airports with minimal infrastructure due to the lower operating costs.
For example, Norwegian Air Shuttle used to operate the 737-800 between Belfast International Airport (an airport dominated by easyJet, Ryanair, Wizz Air and holiday charter airlines) to smaller US secondary airports, like Newburgh and Providence, which can serve both New York and Boston respectively. While Newburgh has a 3.6km runway, Providence has a 2.6km one. Neither would be much of an issue for a wide-body, but with a narrow-body, even smaller airports can be served.
Budget airlines will most certainly look to use smaller airports both in Europe and North America, usually airports which until a new route opens, are only "International" by hosting flights from neighbouring countries.
The shorter take off and landing requirements provides flexibility in selecting secondary airports.
Major carriers and Flag Carriers will most likely not care about this anyway, so the ability to land at smaller (not STOL) airports won't be a factor in route selection anyway. Airbus knows that their customers will be a mix of both Flag Carrier and budget carrier.
For the 797, its use for routes which are lower demand (like Dublin-Washington Dulles) could be applicable, but with a passenger capacity similar to that of a 787, then question becomes more of why buy a 797 over a 787? For Aer Lingus, the answer came down to just buying A321LRs, because then pilots who already are type rated on the A320 family and have flown European short haul can now fly long haul as well.
My point is, are budget airlines going to want to sacrifice the ability to land at smaller secondary airports for a 797 over an A321LR? And are major carriers going to sacrifice range flexibility for a 797 over a 787, or even an A330ceo/neo?
