ACMS,
Some rather qualified people are about to make such assessments that do not share your view. People have been carefully observing the last route proving flight which flew SYD-YVR direct a couple of days back, after flying out of JNB the day before.
The operation on the Airbus fleet is somewhat busier than it needs to be because of commonality the company has elected to make between the fleets. They are not being flown to the simpler SOPs that the manufacturer recommends.
I am sure you are capable of recalling the term inertia, a heavy aircraft will not fly like a lighter aircraft, i.e. a light 783 will not fly like a heavy 773, even a light 346 will not fly like a heavy 346, nor will a aircraft with a 36% derate perform like an aircraft with TOGA. Pilots deal with this on a daily basis.
Boeing have come up with some very pretty overhead panels that share the paint colors and fonts to make people feel right at home, it is pure window dressing. The issue is not flying an aircraft from A to B ops normal, it is not the similarity between the overhead panels, it is when the abnormal situations come to hand where real commonality issues are assessed. The assessment continues, and results will not be known until well into or after the 787 flight test program.
Fortunately such engineering and risk assessments are not made on looks, rather substance, functionality and underlying systems.
Boeing also allow customization of overhead panels. Switches can be ordered to work in the opposite sense on the same aircraft type because one customer wanted it a different way to another. This is madness for commonality.
Your beat up is nothing more than the usual uneducated rant.
P.S. last time I looked, the 777 QRH etc is somewhat thicker that the Airbus one.
P.P.S whale is the ATC nickname for the 747.