A330 Scenario, versus B777
Quote from ArcticLow [Mar02/19:06]:
....At 1000ft radio, the F/O takes control, states "Man Land 280 baro", but leaves the automatics in. At this stage, everything looks OK and they're just waiting to lose the last few knots of extra speed and so the power still hasn't come up fully. They've already discussed this and agreed that idle power is OK at 1000 but they'll go around if still not fully stabilised by 500 radio, as per SOP. At just under 750ft, the speed reaches the bug, the levers move forward to maintain target speed, but nothing happens. The levers go to climb power, still nothing. The F/O applies TOGA power, nothing. The rest is in the AAIB report. I don't know if this is what happened, but it's starting to look like a high probability hypothesis, on the available evidence. Thank God it wasn't a scarebus...
[Unquote]
For someone who claims not to be a pilot, you are remarkably well briefed. Perhaps by one of the Boeing Airways pilots on a long overnight flight?
He has certainly sold you the whole package -
1) If a Boeing has an incident/accident, it cannot possibly be caused by any fundamental problem with the aircraft. 
Possibly rogue fuel? 
2) If an Airbus has an incident/accident, it's because the designer was simply bonkers. 
Sound familiar? So, since you have begged the question, can I stay off-topic to speculate what MIGHT have happened if the Trent engines on an A330, for example, had behaved like the ones on G-YMMM did, at the same point on the same approach?
Unlike the B777, the A330 autopilot would be programmed to Go-Around mode as the pilot selected TOGA thrust. Because the aeroplane would be unable to comply, the AP would drop out almost immediately, and the FD demands on the PFD (ADI) would be of no help. The PF would switch it off (or ask the PNF to do it).
"Fly the aeroplane." The FBW would be doing just that. It would maintain 1-G flight in pitch, and zero-rate in roll; holding a steady descent path and keeping the wings level (if they were when the AP disengaged). Because of the shortage of thrust, the speed would be decaying, as per the B777.
Workload permitting, the PF might select the FPV display on his/her PFD. This, with the FD switched off, would display the "Bird", a symbol showing the drift and descent trajectory. This might be useful to check a steady profile is being maintained initially, even though the nose is being raised steadily as the speed falls. Because of this, the "picture" of the world outside the cockpit windows is starting to look very wrong.
Meanwhile, the aeroplane is still pretty much on the glide-slope. The FBW continues to run the stabiliser-trim in the "nose-up" sense. A decision must be made. The PNF's attempts to revive the engines have failed; we are going to undershoot the runway. What is the best (minimum-drag) speed on this aeroplane with landing flaps and gear extended? Haven't the foggiest idea, but we must be already below it! Time to trade height to stop the IAS going any lower. Slowing down equals MORE DRAG. We'll have to maintain this speed as long as we can. Tweek the sidestick forward a bit, then release. Down we go, is that enough?
We've got to get over the perimeter road – which has already disappeared somewhere under the nose – and into the field. The speed is still decaying slowly, unfortunately, but this aeroplane cannot be stalled. As the IAS drops to Alpha-prot, about 13% above stalling speed, the stabiliser stops trimming back; the stick must now be pulled harder and harder to stop the nose dropping. Can we keep a tiny bit of speed in hand to avoid hitting the ground too hard?
The rad-alt calls "ONE HUNDRED". Pull a bit harder. "FIFTY". Stick hard back - we've got to miss that road. We're close to Alpha-max (5% above stalling speed). Now, the aeroplane will descend of its own accord to avoid stalling. "TWENTY", BANG, we are down...