I'm afraid that while the article is awful, the question still has to asked.
Problems with maintenance, training and experience levels do not simply appear overnight, it takes many many years of cost cutting and cheese paring to increase the probability of an unsafe situation developing into an accident.
Then of course you have Aircraft manufacturers designing in new technology that in theory increases safety levels.
However, there is a sad human phenomenon called "risk shifting", which is when the introduction of a safer technology is offset by increasing the level of risk in other areas, so that the total level of risk remains the same.
Best example I am aware of is ABS in cars, has it reduced the frequency of nose to tail crashes? Apparently not, because drivers compensate for better brakes by driving closer together.
Compound this situation by management focussed on short term performance (and bonuses) and you have a potentially lethal situation because the results of the cheese paring and cost cutting will not be offset by advances in technology (Thanks to risk shifting), and in any case, the damage will not be visible for at least three to five years, by which time the culprits have taken their bonuses and are long gone.
So possums, I predict you are going to see more Congonhas, Medans, Adam Airs and Phukets as less experienced pilots, working longer hours, to tighter schedules, with minimal cabin crew, fly more sophisticated aircraft with minimum allowable maintenance performed by less experienced engineers into more and more destinations, in worse and worse weather.
To put it another way chaps, IT ALL ADDS UP, and it adds the wrong way.
The saddest part is that it is going to take not one, or three fatal accidents, but ten to fifteen in one year before regulatory bodies cannot ignore the truth.
You can cut too deep, but it won't be the managers who do it that bear the cost. It will be the flying public.