In defence of the Airbus non-moving philosophy, as they say, training, training, training.
This topic has been touched on in other threads. Now there is a direct question. My thoughts, following the quote above, is that I'm not sure training for its own sake should be opposite to what is natural instinct when under a moment of pressure & stress. Human natural instincts will generally take over when the brain is scrambled. Don't fight it, embrace it.
Non-AB; when on a manual approach you set a thrust for the job in hand. If slowing down through the flaps you have a low power setting. When final configuration is achieved you set a sensible thrust setting and make fine adjustments to maintain speed. Even on an LVO ILS you 'follow through' the a/c including the A/T. It is reassuring to feel the a/c doing its proper job. When you can not 'feel' the a/c responding to circumstances you have to increase your scan rate to include the thrust meters. Is it a sensible setting?? Is this increased work load what you really want; is it a good idea? Does it lead to a false trust and a blasé attitude that all will be OK. Feel is a great sense that pilots use at all times. This is now removed and transferred to sight. That requires more brain power & concentration; IMHO. Is that an improvement?
On take off and CLB non-moving thrust levers is no problem. In CRZ it is no problem as long as you monitor speed and the N1%; in descent they are mostly at idle; you should monitor speed and N%. All these phases are usually a monitoring phase. However, on approach and G/A, following the a/c and what it's doing is very important. So why not, when the a/c goes into 'APP Mode" design the T/L's to move? It would be a doddle and put the pilot back into the loop where they should be. A visual approach, manually flown, is not a time to be a monitor. If you fly manually and control the T/L's yourself, that's normal. If you fly an A/P ILS with A/T why not make the A/T's move and keep the piloting sense alive? It would be so easy, technically. Is there a will? There is certainly a way.
Why are line pilots not more involved with the evolution of technology and the feedback after a coupe of years of introduction? Sometimes I feel we are forced into adjusting our behaviour, not always naturally, to suit the ideas of the technocrats. I'm not a dinosaur, but a round peg fits a round-ish hole better than a square one.