One of the problems with the article (I'm not sure which side the writer falls to be honest) is the 80 and 90 hour monthly schedule figures he used from Jay's quote. I'm sure there is more to the quote than that, but the average passenger will see 80-90 hours A MONTH???? They'll think "I have to work 40 hours a week plus a part time job just to make ends meet!" They don't comprehend what it takes to get to that 80-90 hour figure as it relates to time on the road for the average (not 747/777) pilot. The time away from home, sitting between flights not getting paid, etc. As a result I don't think the article will garner any sympathy. Not that I care what the traveling public thinks of my pay except when I sit next to someone who comments about the six-figure income I have yet to make in my career and then correct them.
And remember the company propaganda is right out of the play book and all ATA airlines follow it. Remember when the Whitlow rule/letter/interpretation came down? The ATA said the "onerous rule" of giving reserves 9 hours of rest between call blocks would bankrupt the airlines because of the huge increases in staffing. Didn't see that happen. Now they are saying any FT/DT rest requirements will add $20 billion+ over 10 years to their costs while the FAA and labor unions have said it is not even close to that. They are going to fight anything that increases their costs one cent because they don't want to pay for it. Look at NextGen. They want it badly for flight efficiency and money savings (i.e. fuel) but they want the government to pay to equip the planes to operate in a system that the airlines will directly benefit from.