Unable to address the specifics of the question, but the FAA text appears to equate to similar EASA text. (CAT.POL.A.350 Approval of short landing operations).
However there are significant differences in that EASA applications are requirements whereas FAA is advisory; also that EASA applications (past experience) relate more to turboprop than jet operations.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence (significantly from this forum) is the the 737 is not the best aircraft type to consider for such a dispensation based on accident / incident records.
Practical considerations might consider dispensation for a reduced TCH (not EASA), and if so what are the obstacle clearance implications.
Or a duck-under manoeuvre, a different flare technique than that recommended by the manufacturer, or safety margins in landing distance.
The ICAO Performance Manual Appendixes cover a wide range of issues, which as above suggest that an alternative operation should considered very carefully:
Re question #1, considered in Appx 4 (~page 48)
https://www.sapoe.org/wp-content/upl...rce.pdf#page48
n.b. Appendix 7. Pilot Procedures and Flying Techniques when landing on length limited runways.
Appendix 9. Policy on Landing Distance Margin.
Appendix 12. Requirements for Operator and Pilot Training
Re question #2, the normal published performance is more likely to be based on AC 25-32 para 8.2 which suggest air distances greater than 1000ft
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/AC_25-32.pdf
n.b. judgmental text: 8.1.3
- consistently executed in service by crews of average skill;
- methods or devices that are safe and reliable;
- allowance for any time delays that may reasonably be expected in service.