Just a technical point: L.Z.'s claims may be false, or partial, but they're not unsubstantiated. Rather, he's quite clear about the claim:
The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.
The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.
The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.
Those are some pretty material charges, and they contain statements that can be verified or falsified with documentation (from BAe and governments, or wherever), specifically A) "The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe" B) "Airbus did not perform specified tests" and C) "The FAA, DGCA and CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed". If they're false, then these statements could be seen as libelous. If they're true, the conclusion drawn from them, that a lightning strike will take down an aircraft Iran Air style, may stlil not be the case, as there may be suppressed evidence involved.
But it's not unsubstantiated. And "Get it on the ground-itis" is not limited to flight crew. Corporate Management applies considerable pressure to deliver product on time and under budget. That's how they make money, and history is rife with faulty engineering designs, from the Titanic to the Teacher in Space. And the greater the pressure, the more likely failures are to creep into the system. Enter the A380, a huge project on which, we've been led to believe, hinges the fate of aviation manufacturing in Western Europe. Here's a project that's already 2 billion Euros over budget and 5 tonnes overweight; a project where the rollout was an international event, with heads of state, speeches, and the direct identification of the aircraft with the hope, pride, and future of an entire continent. Under such pressure, will it become the Skytanic? Or will it be a lugubrious product of byzantine overbureaucratization in the post-EU world? Or will it just rock the roof off?
Dunno, but I would expect it to fail a few tests on the first go. It's a big plane.