Now you made another post that does not
show, that the A320 studies are shelved because of a questionable business plan. In you quote there are even two (other) reasons mentioned. It requires a tremendous amount of creative interpretation, to read "the A320++ business case is not water proof" from your own quotes....
I never said I knew exactly why the A320++ was shelved. It likely was for a combination of reasons which has resulted in the A321XLR studies. You seem more interested in arguing and trying to find hypocrisy than discussing so I will end there.
Apart from the engines the A320 has gone through only evolutionairy small improvements / upgrades. Even the NEO is basically about new engines.
A serious MidLifeUpgrade could theoratically be part of the family's lifecycle. It would include more radical changes that significant improve efffectivety / costs but would decrease commanlity too. I'm thinking new materials, new tail, wing, cockpitredesign, systemarchitecture etc. Each seperately might not be worthwhile, but if you do them all/many significant improvement might result. But you pay a price in terms of time, commonality and upfront investment.
The upgrades have been evolutionary, yes, but if you add them all together, the A320 model from 2018 is quite different from the A320 model 1988. I assume for example that the hardware driving the Flight control system is quite different between both models.
I assume that improvements will be handled similar in the future, step by step.
I do not see any reason why Airbus should give up commonality between A320, A330, A350 and A380 to move the A320 in the direction of the C-series. I could rather imagine, that improvements from the A350 will be moved to the A320 and A330 platforms.
What actually are the features making the C-series cockpit and FBW more "modern" and better than on the A320? I would like to put a question mark with that declaration.
Mjoelnir, I think you have an excellent point. Upgrades and redesigns are justified by some positive impact in either operational capability, reliability, or efficiency. Change for the sake of change or even mild improvement is highly discouraged. Airlines have huge spare parts and inventories as well as overhaul and repair agreements with vendors and suppliers. Rolling part numbers adds cost to the maintenance costs of the airplane since it results in churn, retrofits or more spare parts or configurations to keep track of. Marketing departments publicly want the latest and greatest yet finance and engineering wants minimal change.
I'm thinking new materials, new tail, wing, cockpitredesign, systemarchitecture etc. Each seperately might not be worthwhile, but if you do them all/many significant improvement might result. But you pay a price in terms of time, commonality and upfront investment.
Where is the benefit from such a radical overhaul? The benefits that airlines pay for are fuel burn reduction, increase in payload/range, or navigation improvements.
Cockpits have already radically changed since the introduction of the A320. GPS, RNAV, EFB, Heads Up Display, CAT IIIb, RVSM, etc. Most of these innovations are barely noticeable to the untrained eye, but these are what the airlines pay for since it improves the operation and allows the airplane to do more and fly more places more efficiently. Avionics upgrades is a huge business and doesn’t wait for other improvements. The A320 and 737 are pretty similar in navigational capability. Other than bigger screens to mimic the 737MAX, what cockpit redesign is needed?
Changing systems architecture has very high certification costs and increases maintenance costs with configuration and spare parts issues. Upsizing systems is common when tied to more capability. I see very very little interest in modifying the systems configuration unless absolutely necessary caused by other upgrades like a new wing.
New wing, tail and materials would likely be tied to the A320plus plus that we’ve heard about. Those are big changes in capability and weight. That would probably affect everything else. THe reason for those would be to increase payload and probably capacity. We will see if Airbus renergizes that effort if the NMA gets launched.