It comes down to LGA, loaded, hot day and that engine shells at a hair under V1. Steel brakes that warp under normal use or carbon brakes that will bring you to a dead stop in 1,600 feet. If you make the go decision it's 2.5 to 3:1 weight/power ratio on the bus, 6:1 on the 9. I'll take the FADEC over limping along with a 40 year old JT8D, managing remaining fate by +- 10 kts. I really appreciated knowing that a good aircraft can get you away from the ground really quick when SHTF.

Throw in adverse weather, I'll take a Bus with an auto brake designed to keep you lined up with the runway over a design whereby the reverse thrust blankets the rudder and hardly effective nose wheel steering.

Predictive wind sheer.

Autoland

Substantially better SA in a dark and/or mountainous area.

Quiet cockpit, less fatigue do to heat and wind noise.

Printer, allows for better cockpit presentation of critical information, less chance of confusion and/or a mixup.

Managed navigation vs VOR to VOR mixed with fatigue and leg #5.

Passenger comfort; I'm quite sure the last five or six rows on the 9 create a hearing hazard.

Frequent downline mechanicals, number one reason I get called on reserve.

It was ahead of it's time in the 60's when Boeing was still building three man cockpits. On the flip side of the coin, a lot changes in 40 years and by today's standards, I'd rather see 320s, 737s and 757s.

In defense of Airbus, when was the last time you saw one with wrinkles in the skin? Exactly. And considering how hard Sully slammed that 320 into the water, it too is tough as nails. 320: Nearly a dead stick ditch in NYC, zero fatalities.