Of course the failed RA in the Turkish accident was a contributing factor. If Boeing had a made a comparator between the two RA, the accident may not have happened. Or if that had had the new "Airspeed low" warning that we have now (introduced after that accident), they may have had sufficient time to correct their inattention.
Every aircraft has it's pitfalls and that is why there are pilots in the cockpit. The buttom line is that they did not watch was going on, and that at a completely unacceptable phase of flight.
However, the aircraft did not change it's characteristics. Nothing was working against them. Nothing cluttered the information at hand, one look at the airspeed indicator should have been enough to know what was going on. It's always procedure to disconnect the automatics when taking over manually, they failed to do so as well. Maybe it was lucky, since they performed an incorrect recovery procedure as well. Had the engines stayed at high thrust they may have ended up with nose 45 deg high and airspeed of 30 knots and the crash may have been a lot worse. That they pancaked it on to the ground, is probably the reason that most survived.
The problem with the Airbus is that you have an aircraft that is changing it's behavior depending on which failure you may encounter. Comparing Turkish and AirFrance is utter unfair to the AF crew, who despite acting incorrectly (justified or not, see previous post) were not negligent. They had an aircraft that adapted to- and covered up every false move they made.
All conventional and Boeing FBW aircraft always retains the same flying characteristics.