The main point is neatly summarized in the fifth paragraph:

> But the fee model comes with systematic costs that are not immediately obvious. Here’s the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs be something worth paying to avoid. That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as “calculated misery.” Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it. And that’s where the suffering begins.

One thing that the story doesn't mention is that business travelers are some of the people that suffer the most, because we are required (usually, and unless you're some sort of corporate higher-up) to book the cheapest seats that we can find. Ironic because we travel quite a lot more than "regular people". I guess this is something that could be dealt with on a corporate policy level, and isn't necessarily the problem of an airline, but it's just interesting to notice.

I find it hard to accept that airlines are intentionally making their seats smaller with the primary reason to get people to pay more fees. It's much more likely they're trying to extract more profit on packed flights.

Also, claiming that making seating a slow process to get people to pay more fees is also suspect. The airlines are motivated to have on time departures because it makes it easier to turn the plane around. Also, the airlines have tried other mechanisms that are faster, but passengers rebel. For example, seating people by seat position (window, middle, aisle) doesn't make sense for people travelling with children or otherwise high-maintanence passengers.

Personally, I think the new model is great. The airline still gets your physical body where you need to go, and if you want nicer things, you pay for them. I find the behavior of other fliers affects the quality of my flights more than the airline.