OK. After this I'll never mention it again
BBB...this is a conversation between mature adults, both pilots. I'm not about to control what people do or say. I'm asking for a little forebearance in terms of the discussion, which, because you are a regular here, you know that the topic has been done, over and over again and gets us nowhere; the airplane is what it is and it seems to work well for those that fly it.
The thread was beginning to settle down into serious discussion, and I could see it taking off once again on another familiar tangent.
On your second observation re a "bus ain't a non-bus" , you've never flown the Airbus so you can't comment on it with any foundaton of knowledge or experience.
I've said many times here that where the airplane deserves critical assessment, and I've done lots of that over the decades, then I''m all for solid feedback based upon knowledge. But to be fair, and to be taken seriously in discussion, one has to go beyond what others say about the airplane, and know for oneself, the subject of criticism. The airplane is nowhere near as different as you have the impression, an impression gained through hearsay, not actual experience. The incident/accident record of the airplane is adequate proof of this.
The trim, and its availability to the pilots of AF 447, has been discussed at length as has standard responses to the stall. If managements of airlines, in their wisdom fail to teach about the airplane and, either through parsimony or the illusion that 'these airplanes fly themselves', fail run a sufficiently robust recurrent training program to ensure a depth of knowledge and that training precludes hand-flying and system knowledge, (vice Need-to-know nonsense), then that needs to be firmly resisted and changed. There is plenty of evidence now in place for change, beginning with those up front.