Well considering some one crashed a 777 in front of the HQ they should have changed the requirements on the 777.
Considering that the skipper in question most probably did a transition upgrade (i'm not absolutely sure though), maybe this was a bad idea .....
The 'family ghost' always appears when such transitions retard the personal carreer
, but there is something to it. AB and B put in quite some effort to make transitions within their product easier (cheaper for company). Pilots however want to be promoted and for that would not deny any equipment change (more doe). Both sides easily swap arguments pro or con to suit their momentary needs. I remember the T7 FOs grinding at the idea of 334 FOs transit upgrading, just as 380 FOs called T7 skippers transiting dangerous.
As i said, there is something to it. Trained and experienced on one philosophy, regarding the complexity of modern aircraft, one might have to remain in that line, as a lot of automatisms and underlying programmation (thus inherent dangers) can be better mitigated (Swiss cheese model).
Same goes with a seat change. The one time we change is the time we get the most training -- upgrade. Downgrades are done with little regard to training needs, short and often unnecessary. I am no fan of seat changes (see the problems AF447 revealed).
Considering the above, i find the actual policy inadequate. The EK 334 skippers are qualified enough to make the jump onto the 380. If they upgraded from the 334 they are more suited to operate the 380, even with only 1000h captaincy, than a T7 skipper with the required hours.