This plane can be built everywhere, but the concept of the plane is 100% french, because only the french has a twisted mind to do a machine so complex and no human friendly like this.
I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
This has rotten the roots of a "Could be a good aircraft", and this problem surfaces in extreme flying conditions, when a plane has to give 100% of is capability.
Because it is no really a plane, in this conditions the bus touchs the margins of it´s envelope, so unexpected or no human preparer situations or departures occur.
All new generation Airbus has problems in this conditions, remember the crosswind landings of Air France, TAP, Iberia and Lufthansa and the hard landings of Iberia.
It also have problems in machine management conditions, examples of this are the unexpected fuel transfers or no tranfers at all that ended in flameouts, and the problems of miscomunications with the machine that have ended in CFITs.
In the Gulf Air accident do you think that the F/O was perceiving that the Captain was pushing the sidestick foward?
This thing is not stated in the final report of the accident. But think about it. The other sidestick doesnt move, and the other guy dont know what the PF or the flying controls are doing, only what the plane do.
In an B757 for example, if I´m going down and I see the joke fully foward, I know in one second that something strange is happening with the PF, and I think that 99% of the PNFs will pull the joke backwards as instinc reaction.
The Airbus golden rules are another lie, or better said, half lie. You will never fly this airplane like a conventional plane, because is not a plane. The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
In trainning I usually see the pilots have more problems dealing with the aircraft that dealing with the failures.
Ergonomy, another lie. The only ergonomy are the tray and the seats. The lights can be better. The primary flying control are small and displaced, they are designed to not touch it. Another example, look at the spoilers, the are small and not located in a practical position, I have to extend my arm downwards and back to reach it, and I´m not seated very foward and high. You need to monitor de ECAM to confirm its deployment, while in other aircraft, only with the movement of the lever with you periferical vision you, or moving you free arm without loooking you can confirm this.
But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
I know that this discursion is carried out since the begining of times, but in my case, If I have to face dificult conditions or operations, I prefer anything that Airbus. Plain and simple, just an airplane that is going to do what I command it to do, and that is going to respond as I expect.