Never flew the latest Airbus types, only A310 and most Boeings, but have always been interested in the differences, with a bias.
The 'bus driver has to account for different control laws, in this situation they change, how that affects the approach only they know.
However the biggest difference seems to me to be the side-stick that does not move. In a conventional airplane you can see the amount of aileron applied by the amount of control wheel (stick) displacement and if you have enough, you can wait for a response before moving it further or reversing the direction. With a non-moving side stick, I cannot see how this type of control can be used. You must leave it to the computer, and hope the conditions are not more than the computer can handle. Why not, then, accept the fact that all you are doing is a form of auto land and simply leave the auto pilot engaged for all landings? Why have a pilot at all in the Airbus types?
And another point I have not seen discussed; what happens when, after 20 plus years of flying this type of airplane, you move back to a conventional airplane? How do you restore your basic flying skills? If you are trained to leave it all to the computer, you will not be able to handle this sort of approach problem, or many others, because your instincts have been altered to one of inaction, when in a conventional airplane direct action will be required to maintain safe control.
I have seen how hard it is for a glass pilot to go back to conventional instruments, mostly because pilots will take the easy way out and begin to rely on the computers for instrument flying rather than use raw data occasionally. Basic handling, though, is much more serious and it would not surprise me to see more accidents due to a lack of skill for pilots coming back to conventional equipment.