Agreed. I think unfortunately most of the people outraged by this decision are completely unaware of the complexity of systems on board a modern airliner. There

Agreed. I think unfortunately most of the people outraged by this decision are completely unaware of the complexity of systems on board a modern airliner. There are other systems like the Mach trim system which adjust the trim in response to Mach speed. There are yaw dampers on aircraft with good reputations which are critical for safety of flight (e.g the concensus is the 757 will depart controlled flight without an operative yaw damper). Even on the 737 flying with an in-op yaw damper has been known to make light chop vomit inducing. There was a sibling comment somewhere in this post that stated that airbus doesn't introduce a layer between the pilot and the aircraft. This couldn't be further from the truth (assuming normal control laws). Applying full back stick on an airbus will hold the aircraft right on the edge of a stall. Applying full left or right on the stick will neatly roll the aircraft to 60 degrees of bank. Releasing the stick at this point will roll the aircraft back to a perfect 30 banked turn in the same direction. This isn't normal behaviour by any stretch. If anything I think Boeing are suffering from not going to fly by wire control earlier. That would have made this whole subsystem irrelevant. You'd just apply the desired behaviour in the response curves in the control software.