A very misleading article
Airbus only knows what has happened so far not that they can stay attached in all circumstances including in the air due to any engine failure.
How well did they survive in Quito A340? How well did they stay attached on The A300 in AA587?
How well will they survive with about 5 fan blades missing?
The FAA spokesman said it correctly both Boeing and Airbus mounts are "safe enough" else they wouldn't both be flying today.
It's best not to claim "not me" in the midst of public agony about the other guy.
I'll admit that the degree of redundant load paths could be different, but in the case of the B747 experience, cited in the article, indeterminate multiple load paths are not desireable or easy to fix when you can't simply figure out what will break it in the first place.
So what makes all this public discussion to get Byron Acohido and his typewriter energized? Does he really have an end point? Does he feel that the recent B737 was another disaster in the making like his rudder teatise?