Was there the next day and the agent pointed the a/c out to us, and you could see it didn't look right sitting there.
This is the sort of unsubstantiated statement that is breaking out all over Pprune! I have looked at the photograph on page 1. I can see noting about 'didn't look right'. I was expecting to see the fuselage buckled down on either side of the main landing gear! Looks to me the damage may be more superficial than you might get the impression of in this thread.
Turning this thread away from Airbus v 'the rest' philosophy and back to the incident, Mexico City poses some significant hazards that conspire to prevent a stabilised approach. Large terrain (Popocatopetl is nearby), the main approach is reached by a 90 degree close in base leg, and the extreme altitude causes very high TASs on finals. It is quite frightening observing your speed as you approach the flare. The runways are long, but you use them because of the altitude and speed, so if you float, there can be a desperation to 'put it down'. I found it a very difficult airport to operate in and out of, at the limits of a 747 performance. Places like this will inevitably have a greater risk, and spring nasty surprises on unprepared crews. I can recall happily descending on a left base procedure with mid flap when I casually glanced out at the airport and gulped- it was far closer than I anticipated and we were going far faster than we should have been! Also, flying on QNH, the altimeter is giving you enormous altitude readings which leads to complacency.