He's telling us something about a power-off emergency landing, when you use up the stored energy (speed and altitude) of a large aircraft to get as far along as you can. That is not the way you do a normal landing nor did he describe it as such. For a normal landing you depend on thrust from the engines to maintain the glidepath. It would be possible to start an approach from a point where you set the engines to idle but then flight-path control would depend on nothing changing (updrafts, downdrafts, headwinds, tailwinds) so that just isn't the way it's done in the real world.
I think some of you are missing the point that what was so special about what the BA crew accomplished was that it was done in a way that we don't normally train for. A double engine failure on short final is a statistical near-impossibility in a large aircraft so that valuable training time is not spent covering that. (I have had it but just in those last few minutes after we had done all the mandatory stuff, just "having a jolly," so to speak.)
The first problem, as you might imagine, is "delayed recognition" when pushing the power levers forward yields... nothing! From this point one has to "think outside the box" when most airline flying seems to involve the opposite.
This "delayed recognition" may well feature in the report about the Schiphol crash as well but that is about the only point of similarity I can see.