Having been an avid follower of pprune for many years, and having followed this thread from the outset, I feel compelled to break my duck, and log in to post a comment.
Whilst I am in agreement with the general thrust of the "consensus" which seems to be emerging in relation to this incident, I am struck by the apparent willingness to overlook the implications of the runway navigation aids being inoperative. In an industry which has such an impressive safety record, and where it is the general practice to duplicate or triplicate critical systems where practicable, is it really acceptable to say "sorry, we are remodelling, hope it doesn't inconvenience customers too much?"
Whilst acknowledging the issue presented by pilots becoming over dependent on computers, there seems to be a tacit acceptance that this flight would have landed without incident had the navigation aids been operational. Given that the issue of overdependence on computers is ongoing and real, does it not follow that turning off the runway navigation aids could only result in significantly higher risk? Factor in long haul heavy traffic approaching over water at the end of a long flight, is it not a risk too far? This is not a minor airport in some third world country...
I am not seeking to excuse any inability to land manually in clear conditions, but the stone which started the ripple in the pond looks like being the decision to continue to operate the runway without its full suite of navigation aids.