I *believe* it's only from the A320 series onwards (A32/3/4/80)). The A300 series is an older, more conventional design (albeit with a very advanced AP for its age IIRC).
As with most things, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to both philosophies, but both are more than adequate for day to day operation. The argument for the traditional system here seems to be more geared towards a side-effect of that system in that you won't physically be able to put the levers in reverse unless they're both or all at idle, as opposed to the levers tracking what the A/THR is doing.
actually, the argument, at least as far as I am concerned, is that a TL that is moving with AT gives you two things:
First, you have tactile feedback of the actual thrust setting when you keep your hand on the throttle during the flare.
That is a very immediate, direct means of the aircraft to communicate to you. It does not put any additional load on your visual communication load (which should be monitoring the primary flight instruments and / or the approach minima). It's also a lot less confusing than the aural channel that might be able to differentiate the engine sounds from the rest of the cockpit noises including RA calls, radio communications (not your own, hopefully) and what not.
So without this extra channel, you're quite simple one system parameter short on approach.
Second, upon AT disconnect, the manual thrust setting matches the last AT thrust setting. This, I think, is key. If indeed the #2 TL was left in the CLB detent or shortly below, the AT disconnecting after selecting reverse on #1 would have the #2 engine spool up to the thrust setting defined by the #2 TL.
I've said earlier that good system design should try to prevent errors. That's what this second factor up there does for you. Whether you're in manual or AT mode, moving levers always match the actual thrust setting.
The A320 system is more like the speed telegraph system in the days of the ocean liner, requesting a speed from the engines (or A/THR) rather than directly setting it. It's a perfectly valid and safe system IMO, as long as you understand it.
and never fail to do so and comply with the rules that the system requires.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I'm horrified by the number of people who seem to take a "won't ever happen to me" position. I sincerely hope that all those people are indeed not in a position to ever have that happen to them, that is, the furthest forward seat they'll ever take in an aircraft is 1A or so.
It has happened, at least twice, and the system has neither prevented it from happening nor handled the error nor failed gracefully. Indeed, in this event here, it has failed horribly.
pj