The proof that the concept was "already in the public domain" is that the UK cult/puppet/action TV series of the 1960s called "Thunderbirds" used it EXTENSIVELY. 'Thunderbird 2' was a green cargo plane that took-off horizontally (though rocket-powered). 'Thunderbird 2' was only a nose-cone and rocket-powered tail section. The centre body was empty, as it took various container-like pods to fill the centre-section, depending upon what type of rescue operation "International Rescue" was asked to perform.
I like the Airbus idea, but I think the claim that it is a 'new or novel concept' is false.

Typical. Come up with an obvious idea. Get a patent on it, despite the fact that obvious ideas are not patentable.

I thought of doing this long ago but didn't consider it a patent-able idea. A cargo plane where the tail lifts up and a cargo vessel is loaded has been around for quite a while. Building a plane like the one shown in this article would have to be quite heavy to be structurally sound. I suspect the reduced payload would nullify any increases in efficiency.

Gerry Anderson would have been proud. Thunderbird 2 is go! But since they're abandoning a fully cylindrical cabin with its advantage of uniform cabin pressure containment, they should make the modules rectangular and slot them into a blended wing body design.
Or Airbus could go the extra distance. There are quite a few patents that show such modular cabins which would be ejected to parachute to the ground in an emergency. Most of those patents are from the last 20 years or so, but I remember reading about one such airliner "escape pod" patent back in the 1970s.

I hope they do this. I also had a similar idea after thinking about the lines on airplanes. With the module in the terminal, the entire sides could move out of the way, making it so nice to be able to walk up to the row from the side, stow your gear and sit down without standing in that horrible line. Then, once the airplane lands, and the passenger module is transferred to the new terminal, people could exit the same way. This could also greatly reduce perceived injustice regarding luggage, since the per-row storage bin concept would be quite feasible, and there would be no shortage of opportunity to gate-check luggage that didn't fit. In fact, with this method, one might as easily have under floor storage as overhead storage, which could be a lot easier on people who aren't so good at lifting things overhead. Or, it might be better for bringing long items on a trip, since the underneath storage could reach across the entire row.

The issue is that it is not possible because of the pressurized shell. The section is circular because of that. It would not be possible to cut this shell and retablish its continuity. Thus, the section to remove shall be circular. This leads also to the addition of a pressure bulk behind the cockpit. And the beam shall support the plane structure on the ground whereas it is a part of the normal job of the pressurized structure, wjhich means additionnal weight. The final plane risk to be far less optimized than current planes ...
I add that if you want to optimize the passenger embarkement, there are plenty of improvement possible, just by increasing the numbers of opened doors. On a plane with embarkement/debarkement on the tarmac, you usually use the front and rear door at the same time, doubling the speed. It would also be possible to do that with less hassle than developping totally new planes and fully dedicated airports gates. It would also be possible to open real doors on the wing or doors on the upper deck for the A380 if you want to push the improvement.

@Deres, and even if it could be pressurised properly, imagine how many places there are now that could trigger a catastrophic de-pressurisation. Plus as you said, it increases weight and complexity, which dramatically increases cost, reduces range, etc.

The structural integrity of the plane might not be the same with just a flatbed to set the box on but really the bottom portion portion of the plane could come up to form half of the fuselage. The lowest portion of the container would be cargo either way really so the windows in the cargo container could probably clear the lower permanent half of the fuselage.
Windows themselves may not be that important to have if you want to replace them with digital screens anyway.
Digital screens have potential to be cooler than regular windows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE06ELPwrH4

I think that most people who've wasted a lot of time in airports have had this idea, I know I did. Whether it's valid as a patent is another thing. Perhaps the docking mechanism could be patented, but as pointed out, this idea has been around for a while.

I'm not flying on something that gets bolted together just before each time it takes off.