Really weird, but no matter how many times I read this I can't find anyone saying that Airbus is great. It reads to me that people are saying that all technically challenging projects suffer setbacks, but that Airbus should be able to sort it out and get the thing flying with time. No big surprise there. I can't think of any manufacturer I would like to see defended in these forums as few have ever delivered a major product to time/spec/budget.
Having worked on the project, I found AMSL and Airbus naiive to military expectations and our approach equally naiive in understanding the commercial approach. Partnerships are talked about often in procurement circles, but they are rarely what they pretend to be.
I neither defend Boeing, nor laud its C17 unnecessarily. I support the approach that bought a suitable product off the shelf, making it low-risk and affordable. It (initially) was delivered to time/budget and with potential for greater performance than actually required. It is that kind of flexibility of thinking that actually provides support to the military, rather than promises of technological wonders (how big is that engine?) at considerable risk. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way and we are directed to accept a solution from a bidder inexperienced in what we do. C'est la vie.