I'm amazed the article quoted got published! I'd love to see the forward advertising numbers for it since publication. I can't think of a single organisation I deal with that would allow their products or services to be remotely associated with an article like this.
Isn't the real problem with an article like more general than what it says about cabin crew? I'm steering clear of the whole "flight attendant/stewardess" thing, though must say in passing that it's amusing to see the cabin crew contributors to the debate called "Glamgirl", "Lowcostdolly", and "High-heeled FA", so there is an element of playing to the stereotype portrayed in the article. And, yes, I do know those usernames incorporate a degree of subtle irony, whereas the article appears to be serious.
The more general issue raised by the article is that it implies that it's still OK to be sexist, and to be ageist. Here's a question to think about. Would the article had been published if the writer's complaint was that "the cabin crew weren't white enough"? Or "straight enough"? The fact that an individual thinks this way (ie sexist/ageist) hardly matters. The fact he can get it published is somewhat more depressing.
Finally, I will bet if the author of the article did find himself actually being served by an entire crew of bimbo airheads, he'd be the first to moan about the poor service and lack of personality of the crew. I don't think most passengers care what the crew's like really. Well-presented is good: it makes a statement about the airline's standards generally. Other than that, efficient and personable is probably higher on the list of expectations than anything else.