The difference between the C* pitch control approach taken by Airbus and the C*U approach taken by Boeing is not so much a difference in cert authority requirements as it is a difference in how these two groups chose to address speed stability requirements. Boeing with C*U chose to continue to meet the existing requirements for stick force per knot as speed changes. Airbus chose to seek a special condition to allow their design not to require any force for speed changes within the normal envelope. Airbus was able to convince cert authorities that because their system provides protections for both overspeed and underspeed conditions there was no need to provide pitch controller force cues for speed changes that do not exceed upper or lower limits. As a result, the Airbus C* system does not require the pilot input to manage pitch trim where the Boeing C*U system does. The Airbus system presents the pilots with less workload. The Boeing system is more conventional when compared with non FBW airplanes. As noted earlier, the Boeing system promotes the pilot maintaining pitch trim skills that come in very handy if failures result in dropping to a degraded mode. It may be easy for pilots to unlearn their pitch trim skills when transitioning to a system that does not require pitch trim. Hopefully those same crews are not caught out too far when a failure drops them to a mode that requires manual control of the stabilizer to keep the airplane in pitch trim.