And neither does FSX out of the box. And he is not going to get the best experience with just a keyboard and a mouse either.
Are we really going to do this back and fourth?
FSX has the options, Aerofly does not.
In short, I repeat my last post;
Not really, he wanted other stuff which aerofly absolutely does not have at all.
To explain further , FSX will cover a better flight model and in places at stock look better than aerofly, seriously some aerofly locations are low res, flat textures. Problem with aerofly is it's all looks up top but no body and soul, it has pretty mountainous regions and some villages from high up look nice, until you actually fly and realise you can flail your joystick around like a maniac and recover in seconds and when you fly low or around certain areas it's dog ugly.
In FSX at least, you have many, many addons/extras to take it further.
Some free too!
Also, It isn't just about looks and physics, it's the aircraft themselves and fidelity, you can play FSX at a basic level or get a bit more complicated with controls, unlike Aerofly which is simply go/stop. Although I have to say the stock FSX aircraft still aren't the best, but way better than the other game.
As for keyboard and mouse, I think you're completely mistaken on all the things he wants from the game, you can play FSX fine with a KB/Mouse, even on the most realistic mode with a 737+, it's not hard nor ideal, in fact any flightsim with a keyboard and mouse is pushing it, so why you brought it up in argument as if it had a point. It works, it's doable, end.
Edit: I think that anyone who recommended aerofly in this thread may not have played anything else nor have actually played aerofly, it's a joke of a game and a joke to call a simulator.
The sooner people realise with all these products it isn't about looks the better advice can be given, because you're going to get bored so, so quickly otherwise.