Hiya - I'm all too often one of those poor saps sitting inside the tube while you're all up the pointy end.
In terms of manufacturer reputation I think:
- Yemeni A310 event is meaningless - older aircraft, "dodgier" operator, questionable maintenance, difficult place to land, bad weather;
- Hudson River event is actually positive. The Airbus "seal penetrations for ditching" feature worked after an unlucky double bird strike. A minor miracle IMHO;
- Rio-Paris A330 loss is very negative. Perceived hazard level for the general public (barring missiles and bombs) is that take off and landing are the most dangerous moments. Once you're cruising at 35 kft all is well, sleep, drink, etc.
In the wake of AF447 even the non-specialist press have realised that this terrible accident poses some new questions. The subsequent revelations are not good: repeated near misses related to common mode airspeed sensor failures, AB recommended but not obligatory pitot tube change outs, AF seemingly dragging their feet to effect the change outs despite incidents within their own fleet, etc.
AB (and AF) may not look good when the BEA report is issued. It seems feasible given the number of other A330 airspeed indication loss events associated with the Thales instruments that in the case of AF447 the same thing happened on a stormy night when the pilot/FO did not have the visual references for a sufficiently rapid seat of the pants response to catch it.