When there is an "as supplied" issue, one that creates a safety problem, the standard of the industry is to recall the equipment, or arrange for a refit or replacement. Air France is not in the Airframe business, and Pitot Tubes are not "livery". Airbus is clearly in the wrong, though I see your point, I simply do not agree.
"Void if altered or modified". Ring a Bell? Even with an automobile, a conveyance that can pull over to the side of the road, the vehicle is recalled to the location of Manufacturer's representative, for an approved repair or replacement of the offending kit.
The arrangement is demonstrably full of "Oh, I thought you'd take care of that" nonsense that allows for keeping in service, equipment that has demonstrably fallen short of safety minima.
You think loss of indicated airspeed is not an emergency? The only pilot who may be surprised with a life and death issue must be in test only. UAS got to be "acceptable risk", I think it has been shown that the state of affairs shows it not to be acceptable at all. Not knowing if a STALL WARN is correct? Not knowing that re select of autopilot might initiate a wild climb? These data WERE KNOWN and the pitots sat on the Bench.
You are satisfied that Airbus is free of responsibility once AF has the SB? Two things of utmost importance are absent from that opinion.
Initiative, and Follow-up.
Regulator, Airbus, Air France:
This unholy triumvirate has killed 228 people.
So now the Overspeed Protection is the latest wiggle on the worm? The lack of forthright clarity in understanding of systems by the pilots here on thread is disturbing. Someone, somewhere must know what's up.
Do they?
ps. Be careful about constantly returning to the "ill-trained" crew meme.
We do NOT know that, and pending the accuracy and content of further data, it is a thin branch on which to stand. Saying otherwise begs the lie for BEA "Not impugning the crew" with cherry picked releases. imho.
best regards