Is this possible on the next server release or patch update?
Link 1: Airbus Press Release
Link 2: 737NG vs A320neo: an interesting chess game
Not until we have figured out the necessary fixes for the current aircraft performance system I’m afraid.
Yeah right, I guess 737-700 BGW should be fix first…
I wouldn’t really like to see aircraft that are not used in RL in this game. I think untill the first delivery there is really no need to have them.
that’s exactly what i think.
seeing airline manager on facebook including all 3 potential variants of boeing 787, the -3, -8, and -9.
now that the 787-3 project is scrapped, but certainly there are still a lot of 787-3 flying inside the game…
maybe we dont need to wait for new aircrafts until delivery, but certainly not before the first few planes rolling out just like 787-8 or 747-8F…
I think that the A320NEO wouldn’t be appear until the real first flight of this aircraft. 
play the fb airline manager or read what other people write
it has been said like a thousand times, and i think the AS-Team has not changed their opinion on this so far (neither have I):
No new aircraft will be added before the next big update, concerning performance and so on… In addition to that: no aircraft will be added, before they are in use with a real airline, AND they wont be added before there are any reliable performance figures. That is also why planes like the AN148/158 or the Superjet are not in game yet - the data available right now (like fuel cnosumption etc) is not reliable. We don´t really know how their performance is.
If you are going to request the addition of any new Aircraft in the next patch, then why don’t you add ones that are already in existence - at least, ones that have had one flight or more, rather than advocating for aircrafts that are merely on the drawing board!
I will give you a list of Aircrafts that should get in ahead of this so-called "Airbus A320Neo" :
1). Boeing 787 series - In service and certified.
2). Antonov An-148/158 - Already Certified (AP-25) and in service albeit in limited numbers
3). Sukhoi SSJ-100 Super-jet - Certified (AP-25 & JAR-25) and now in service
4). Tu-204SM - Final flight tests and currently going through Certification
And since some prefer to engage in the business of simulating and flying "unreleased" Aircrafts, we might as well include:
-
Rekkof 100/130 NG
-
UAC/Irkut MS-21
-
Comac C919
-
Comac ARJ21
-
Boeing 737 MAX
-
Bombardier C-series (C100/C300)
-
Tupolev Tu-334
How does that sound?? Huh?? 
787 in service? Nonsense… BTW, 747-8F is certified as well.
BTW, Tu-334 is cancelled in favor of the new joint Russian aircraft manufacturer and SSJ + An-148.
AS could add the new ATR72-600 too and obiously the new dreamliner.
And AS will do so, when the new aircraft perfomance system is available - as written a lot of times before 
There are still no reliable data avaliable for the 787 performance, obviously the aircraft (at least the fist CNs) has a way higher weight than initially planned, Boeing announced to reduce the weight during production but I still don’t think that the resulting performance data is anywhere close to the advertised data. Usually, we can only believe performance specifications proven in real airline operations, and especially not in manufacturer test flights or any other unreliable sources. I guess most car drivers try to get the mpg or l/100km fuel consumption data advertised by your car manufacturer, how close do you come? 
If Volkswagen tell you a Golf does 45mpg and I tell you mine does 30mpg who’s right? With all due respect to AS its probably much better to accept a manufacturers slightly biased (in a positive way) performance figures as at least then it’ll be standardised and should the manufacturer introduce revised figures these can then be incorporated. Different airlines operate their aircraft in different ways and of course this has an effect on performance as do things such as aircraft age, equipment fit and even types of seats installed (look at the projected fuel savings from the new Europa seats being incorporated with AUA)
Yes I think its important to be accurate and we all know the performance system needs a revamp, which I hope means the data for every aircraft in the game will be checked to see if its accurate (Do I need to mention the Dash8-400 here again?) but ultimately the most consistent source of reliable data will be from manufacturers, not wikipedia or any other second hand source!
IMO, the most reliable data should come from operators, but as you said, too many variables can be present to consider it reliable.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, usually make their numbers look better than they really are. That’s an issue especially when you have competing families like A320/737, ATR/Dash8, CRJ/E-Jet, etc. - you don’t know which manufacturer is presenting you with less accurate figures.
This is sooo complicated…
Another way of putting it could be, would you rather have your aircraft in game use the best case scenario fuel burn, or the worst case? When its all about profits I know what my choice would be, although lets face it we’re talking about minor things on the grand scheme of things, any performance improvement given by using one set of figures over another is likely quickly offset by changes in fuel price.
Actually, it is not important wheather we use the best or worst case szenario, as long as the same standard is applied to all aircrafts in the game, and the relative savings between those aircrafts are more or less realistic.
If it would be only Boeing… their data might be more or less reliable (at least after they changed it during the project to what they actually recieved from their flight tests), but how about Tupolev, Antonov, Ilyushin? All manufacturers might have different standards, as the operators have as well. For some aircrafts, there might be no manufacturer data avaliable at all. So I think the best would be evaluating as much information as possible, which could be hardly done before the aircraft is in real airline operations.
Hi,
My Peugeot uses slightly more than what the factory says, but I don’t drive at a continuous speed of 90 km/hr,
and the climb rate of the Morane Saulniers in the flying club is only accurate on a cool day.
But I believe manufacturers give pretty accurate figures. They measure them in optimal circumstances, that’s all.
Besides, the game does not give you a fuel bonus if your planes are equipped with EcoPlus seats (and only use 66% of the seating capacity), just like they do not burn less fuel if they fly half empty.
Or what about long haul flights ? the 737-900 is more profitable than most wide bodies and can be used on transatlantic routes. You could decrease the fuel consumption of wide bodies, but then everybody would start using them on domestic flights
The figures only have to be correct when you compare different aircraft. And if one plane appears too cheap to operate because the game has fewer variables than real life, it gets a lower passenger rating or so. And the result should be a balanced game. Fairly realistic and playable.
Jan
A320NEO is now delivered to Lufthansa. When is it entering the game?
I am sorry for hijacking this topic but it has the right title at least ;).