As my user name suggests, I am not a pilot, professional or otherwise, and have no axe to grind in the A v B debate except to point out that, if we are to have this debate, the views entailed need to be supported by facts. (I am a scientist by training). The mysterious "Bill" quoted in Bubbers' post uses "facts" which are not supported by the relevant accident reports. In some instances, he is just wrong in his assertions and, in others, he seems to stretch investigator's comments to suit his agenda.
The A319 crash about 20 years ago is, I presume, a reference to Indian Airlines 605 (actually an A320 but that is irrelevant). The report is sparse in detail on the cause of the excessive descent rate, but "Bill" apparently knows more. It mentions pilot error with the flight crew not recognising that the aeroplane was in open descent rather than "approach mode". Much of the criticism of the Airbus philosophy at the time came from the French pilots' union who were unhappy about the loss of the FE in the two person flight deck. This philosophy has, of course, long since been adopted by Boeing also.
The A330 test flight accident was attributed to several causes not just the excessive pulling back on the side stick by the FO. He, incidentally. was not a customer (although Alitalia personnel were on board but not as crew) but as an Air Inter pilot on attachment to the Airbus training arm.
"Bill" seems to think that the engines on the A320 involved in the Hudson ditching were basically intact and were shut down due to, in effect, a computer reacting to a damaged sensor. However a cursory reading of the FAA investigation report reveals details of much more severe physical damage to both engines resulting from impact by particularly large birds. In the interest of balance, the report did state that the successful ditching was due, in part, to the Airbus FBW system.
My own view is that unless or until accident statistics show a significant difference between A and B (one way or another) in accident rates then it becomes a matter of personal pilot preference, which is their right. At the moment, I do not believe that the statistics show any such difference. In the context of a complex investigation into a tragic incident, such views as are declared by "Bill" should be ignored as not being fact-based. They might possibly be seen as part of the continuing propaganda war (conducted by both sides) between A and B in the furtherence of sales. Nothing wrong with that but in its rightful context.