In response to the last post, I will admit that I am an airbus pilot and therefore lean towards the bus technology however before arguing against a system perhaps it is worth understanding the big differences.
The side stick is not a control column, it is a g selector, rather than having a direct relationship it will give a rate of turn as you have mentioned which is very different to a conventional powered flying control. The movement required to initiate a turn is quite small and once the attitude is set the control can be released and it will return to neutral but the aircraft will continue the turn so with a system that is designed to operate as such how do provide feedback? Do you make the other side stick harder to nudge? We are talking about very small inputs here that generate quite large reactions. There is no slack in the controls and big inputs mean bigger outputs. PIO for new bus pilots is not unheard of remember the aircraft is pitch stable and so it will fly the trajectory you set, which is different to a conventional aircraft. Often it is better to wait before adding another input as this can increase an effect rather than decreasing it.
The airbus FBW control is a sea change in concept as was jet engines to pistons, some people get over it sooner than others. Its different, it has its pros and cons as do all systems. Will it change, I doubt it as it has many advantages that far outweigh the negatives. The biggest problem that the bus has is changing peoples attitudes to the way things have always been done. If we didnt embrace change then aviation wouldnt be where it is today.
It is also true that the airbus is a visual aircraft - there is a lot of information that must be scanned in but you learn to scan important things during different phases of flight.
As for thrust levers Airbus at one stage in the design process didnt even want to have thrust levers merely switches, so you can see how 'different' the design philosophy is. The debate will go on between Airbus and Boeing but until you have tried it and understand fully what the aircraft is designed to do and how the pilot is to 'operate' it, then you will have preconceptions against it. If you want stick and rudder stuff - go and find a sligsby or vans and have some fun on the weekend, the airbus is an accountants money making machine - it just happens to fly and needs pilots to operate it, they are even talking about pilotless aircraft, how do you feel about that? The reality of flying an airliner, is that it is mainly operated with the AP in and in a controlled environment. For me having a table and space to do the 'other' parts of my job makes sitting on the flight deck for 8+ hours much more comfortable. For the 10 mins max that I spend in manual flight each time we get airborne, using the side stick seems so natural and intuitive I now would find it difficult wrestling with a control column. In a cross wind on a short runway with an Airbus it still requires pilot technique and skill, a different skill but still the same principles as a boeing. The interface might be slightly different but the result is the same. As for monitoring pilots there are sufficient cues to replace tactile feedback and you get a good feel for what amount of pitch is too much. You can still follow through with the rudders and covering the controls is always good airmanship, with the priority button on the stick control can be taken over in an instance.
Its just different - please get over it!
Technology will move on - Boeing aircraft will all be flyby wire soon, and all plastic (CFRP) - does that mean you wont fly on a plastic aircraft? There will be bugs for them to sort out as much as Airbus has its problems at the moment. But the number of Airbus in worldwide fleets must say something that they are doing something right.
This debate always boils down to whos team are you on - I like both, for different reasons, I get paid to fly the bus and so thats what I do. If I had a choice I would probably stick with the bus because the ergonomics and noise level on the bus is better. Perhaps the 787 will be a sea change but both aircraft still do the same job - just with a different philosphy.