Now thinking...
Airbus has to be really upset because the Hudson River incident could have been an excellent publicity for their airplanes. I think it has, but not the extent it could had.
This article would seem a attempt to attract the attention to the airplane.
They can make a campaign: "Our airplanes are more buoyant than Boeing's"
The flight control system (the real difference between Airbus and other manufacturers) was not what made the miracle possible.
I fly A320 and I like it. I don't have to compensate because I don't have feedback from the flight controls in the form of stick artificial feeling. I have the envelope protections so I will not break the airplane into pieces by pushing the sidestick too hard.
But flying manually is basically the same thanin any other airplane. Sidestick backwards, nose up. Forward, nose down. Left, roll left, right roll back. Physics are the same for everybody so the effects are the same.
I miss from the Boeing the artificial forces. I liked to trim.
Is it easier for a begginer to handfly a Airbus than a boeing? I think so, because there is a technique they won't need. But there are no cessnas, pipers or tobagos (french) with fbw sidesticks, yet. So any pilot reaching an Airbus cockpit knows how to trim already.
Being "less pilot" is a matter of automation, rather that flight controls.
At least Sully did not say anything negative about the airplane. If he had been one of those Airbus haters...