Dream Land, I apologise for being a tad facetious in my last post. The point I wanted to make is that a dual stick input occurred after an unsafe airplane state had already developed. In my first post on this thread (#13), I referred to one of the less glorious days in my aviation career when I tried to salvage a high nose up attitude with a “dual yoke input”, with limited, but some, success. The real issue is; should I have recognized a low and slow approach could develop into an increasing pitch attitude after touchdown and commanded an early go-around, or corrected the profile with a takeover well above the runway? The answer is, alas, YES! Fortunately the training manager was the understanding (of other factors) type and I was merely told not to do it again. In theory, with the bus takeover button, I would not have had to cope with my strong armed mate pulling harder than I could push - maybe, maybe not. The real issue is timely error and threat recognition. Irrespective of what type we fly that is the most important tool we have in our safety armoury. Once again I agree with Dozy, both types are good, I found the bus no worse than the Boeing in strong crosswind conditions, in particular the geometry of the 340-300 easier to cope with than the 744, roll control being a little less critical. The 340 JNB incident was purely not understanding the correct rotation technique, caused by bad training. It is good, very good, to get paid to fly either type!
So to the original point of this thread. I believe the difference between Airbus and Boeing controls matters much less than the smucks who apply the inputs. Goodnight, and good luck.