The article implies that using a narrow body keeps costs low, which seems unlikely, and then later contradicts it and says that cost per passenger is higher on a narrow body, which seems likely. Any explanation? Does the 737MAX have some additional secret sauce over a 787/A350?
Nope. I mean, it has latest generation engines which are a significant fuel efficiency improvement on the engines on older 737s (which is what Norwegian were drawing their attention to in the original announcement about the MAX making these routes viable, since their MAXes aren't delivered yet) but so do the 787/A350. Similarly, for older generation engines transatlantic crossings are right on the limit of narrowbodies' range, which becomes less of a problem with the newer generation.
It seems to clarify the real reason for preferring narrowbodies later in the article by pointing out that Norwegian would be reasonably confident of filling a 737 on a Dublin/Stewart route whereas they couldn't guarantee the same for the larger 787s without excessive price cuts.
- Yes, sure the new 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per seat mile than the old 737
- In addition, in absolute terms a 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per _mile_ than a large 777 allowing them to fly small routes to secondary airports that would otherwise not be economical
