Machinebird
Sorry for the delay in responding but I would submit that what you were writing about is the perception not the actuality. Some commentators are adopting a them and us approach - pilots and airline companies. It more suggests to me a misunderstanding of just what it takes to run an airline than an actual perception of reality. It also ties in with a common human perception that things were better in the past whether it is true or not. It may indeed be that some things were better in the past but it is also true that some things weren't.
When you actually study some of the older accidents (and you don't even need to go back to the 70s to see this) you realise that there have always been pilots who have lacked the necessary skills. What automation has done is allowed a massive increase in the number of flights with a concomitant increase in the level of safety needed to sustain this. Of course you will find some negatives in the introduction of automation and the way it is used but this is due to the humans involved NOT the machines. It is clear that the skills of this particular crew played the significant role in the accident but this is not a general malaise as this accident is unique and other crews have dealt successfully with similar incidents. This alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that the accident is not indicative of a general problem.