do you fly jet airliners because this is where your hard work and skills got you or because it is full of automation?
Both to be honest.
There is nothing wrong with a Seneca or a Cessna, and I did not ever suggest there was. They do what they are designed to do - I have flown both.
Seneca or Cessna flying is FLYING in a very real sense, and fair play to all who still do it. But flying day in, day out, commercially, in busy London airspace, saving fuel, keeping to the schedule, changing freq's every 3 mins over Germany etc., I would not want to fly all that manually every day - give me a modern jet. The Airbus is a fantastic machine which is very efficient and modern. It can do a lot of the 'donkey work' for me, and I like that. I finish the day more relaxed and unstressed, and I have plenty of other stuff to do to keep me occupied on a flight. If I want to; I can hand fly it, or if I am tired after a 10 hour sector, I can program and monitor. If I do that though, I still need to understand exactly what it is doing and manage the energy etc.
I have flown both 'clockwork' BAe146's and Airbus. I found both very easy and a pleasure to fly, but they are polar opposites. However, my 'clockwork jet' experience did not prevent me from embracing the modern technology of the Airbus.
Bubbers, I agree and I don't think any of us pilots can understand what the hell the AF447 pilot was doing holding full backstick in alternate law, but that was down to his (lack of) training, not the Airbus. His actions would have crashed a Boeing too. Ditto why did that other pilot snap the fin off an A310 by working the rudder pedals like a bicycle? (lack of) training again. Sometimes the bad apples get through.......
Galaxy, don't worry - passengers will never accept pilotless aircraft. If an automatic tube/subway train goes wrong it won't fall out of the sky - they can just cut the power and it will stop. But pilotless aircraft....nobody will ever accept that.