That case is very different and not really reliant here. The biggest difference is that in that case he caused the accident by covering his view in a rush. In this case the manufacture(s) are the reliant party. This is the application of extremely old torte law from the UK which is also in the Australian legal system. It is hard to see how a different result would occur for these facts in an Australian case. We have had very similar cases which had much wider results. For example the loss of income to the family members of that person who was killed in a road accident is considered foreseeable and reasonable.
An interesting aspect will be if the other manufactures are sued successfully. This does not stop them having recourse against Airbus for improper use of their products.