brian dromey
Although there was talk two or three years ago that the A320neo would offer improved airfield performance it would appear this may not have been achieved in practice. The issue for Airbus was that the basic weight of the A320neo airframe engine combination was 1.8 tonnes heavier than for the A320ceo and this would have impacted on short runway operations. To rectify this situation Airbus developed a package of aerodynamic improvements with the aim of restoring identical or improved take off performance compared with the A320ceo. This article from Flight Global two months ago explains: -
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...0neo-t-437479/
Whether an improvement was achieved is not clear - one would have thought Airbus would be publicising it more widely if that were the case. What is more certain is that the improved fuel burn of the neo (claimed and apparently corroborated as c.15%) will translate into a useful range increase at full payload from a performance limited runway.
To translate this into real terms, a more useful calibration of A320 performance from SEN (than the examples quoted earlier in this thread) would be to compare the EZY A320 operation from SEN to Tenerife. SEN-TFS is 1611 nautical miles great circle distance and EZY were reported to cap sales to 170 - this was for the 180-seat A320 without sharklets). SEN-ACE was capped at -5. This is for the six month winter period. Now a recent post from a credible poster on the SEN thread indicates that EZY expect to be able operate the A320neo SEN-TFS in winter without restriction , and also during summer though sometimes restricted.
The above figures of course are not absolutes. They represent the commercial and operational assessments of one airline for route planning purposes. A different airline with different routes might adopt a more (or less) conservative approach.