It's not "the platform". Escalating situations from UAS have claimed a 727 and two 757s just to start with, and likewise several Airbus FBW widebodies have been recovered from UAS successfully while the pitot tube problems were being solved.
Trying to make it about Airbus is to miss the point. The issue is systemic to the industry as a whole, and that issue is airline management forgetting what it is that their businesses actually *do*, which is ferry hundreds of people at a time from one place to another in a metal and composite tube which spends most of it's time at 30,000ft and doing over 500mph. Consequently they forget that while safety has improved considerably over time, the fallout when something does go seriously wrong tends to be catastrophic, and that even if the chances of something going wrong tends to be in the 1 in 10,000 range or lower, the two people at the sharp end have to be fully prepared to do everything in their power to rescue the situation. And that while SOP and emergency checklists go a long way to mitigating the risks, only confident, competent basic airmanship - including stick-and-rudder and basic principles of flight - can save the day on the occasions they don't.
The junior crew on this flight didn't need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the A330's systems to recover, all they needed to remember was the stuff they learned back when they were doing their PPL - namely recognising the symptoms of, and recovery from, a stall (which are more-or-less the same whether you're flying a microlight, a space shuttle or everything inbetween). Unfortunately airline management don't see fit to mandate revision of the basics like this by and large, probably considering it too costly.