But I guess it's more fun to bash the "scarebus" than to try and understand it's logic.
That's the problem, isn't it - when !!!! hits the fan over the Atlantic you have to think instead of instinctively react. Apparently even experienced Airbus pilots have problems understanding the "logic" (misnomer?).
The pilot has to adapt to the engineers idea of a good aircraft, instead of a design that is build around what is natural from a pilots point of view. This is a prime example of poor engineering!
I am not saying that it can't be flow like a normal aircraft or that it is not pleasant to fly (can't speak intelligently about either since I never flew it), I am just saying that when things go wrong, it's a bad concept - like numerous accident have proven, most lately AF447 and the Perpignan test flight (incidentally both due to sensor failures and stabilizer trimmed to full pitch up without pilot knowledge as contributing factor). Then there are all the close calls, like zoom climb and subsequent stall due to a simple overspeed, aileron deflection that reduces after touchdown in x-wind without pilot knowledge, aircraft dropping several thousands of feet because a box goes belly up... and what have we not.
Try to convince me once again that we should just "understand it's logic".
All that said I sadly prefer to fly Airbus when flying as a passenger, considering the deteriorating skills of pilots, I have more confidence in the computer not breaking down, then someone up front having to deal with an engine failure while hand flying. 