Training, sidestick etc..
I've made my views clear I think the primary cause of this accident is the Air France training/hiring/promotion practices however, I find myself thinking of some other things as well. The engineering of the aircraft, placement of probes and such is without doubt very good (and I am a Boeing fan). In almost all cases, things will work as they should and even (most) did in this case.
I do see valid points with the sidestick vs. yoke argument. I see a lot of times in the CVR/FDR data where the yokes may have made a difference. I think the yoke would have even more explicitly told the PNF just how badly the PF was 'over-correcting' for small deviations and he might have put some 'gentle pressure' on the yolk to smooth things out a bit. PNF had the experience, the seniority and the hours in the airplane but not the authority it seemed. With a yolk, 'sending a message' might have been easier through feel than verbally as he tried to several times unsuccessfully.
If this accident happened even in that case, we may have seen traces more similar to Egypt Air depending on how far the pilots were willing to push what they thought was happening. Looking at the last few seconds of the traces, strangely similar to Egypt Air and I'm sure this was due to confusion and two pilots not trained in how to react and their responsibilities in a crisis and a captain's poor decision to leave the authority in less skilled hands.
I don't see the yoke vs. sidestick being an issue except in crew teamwork. With good training, it seems to have been proven either is a safe and effective way to handle an aircraft. However, in those crisis times when two guys have to work as a team, the sidestick may not be the best solution.
Then again, what would have happened in the Egypt Air case had it been an A330? The computer would have summed the inputs and they would have had level flight, once they got the engines restarted obviously?