Very well, but what does this opinion have to do with the incident at hand? The comment "Another Airbus" suggests that a tailstrike during landing is an Airbus-specific problem, which is plainly untrue. It is a problem that's more pronounced for aircraft with long-fuselages like the 737-900, 777-300, DC-8-61, or A346, but we knew that already, didn't we?
-xetroV (flown A, B and McD and I love and hate 'em all).
This aircraft would have had to have a pitch angle greater than 15.5 or about 14 degrees oleo compressed. As I recall, once below 50' RA, the Airbus protection system enters flare mode which uses the current pitch attitude as a 'zero' reference for the flare and touchdown. Does the system use the pitch angle regardless of whether it is outside of the ground clearance limits ?
Regarding the now-missing quote, perhaps what the original poster was referring to is the Airbus flight envelope protection system and its (often wrongly) assumed ability to avoid a tailstrike during landing.