On a serious note, the problem with remote/pilotless aircraft is the integrity of data transfer from 'down here' to 'up there'.
To go down the road of having a 'remote station' that somehow, in real time, can cope with the complexities of systems management, configuration changes and god forbid, emergencies, one must have a robust process of ensuring that the data-link will not be lost or interrupted. To that end, whilst sun-spot activity, interference from other sources (Steel works are a major source) and atmospheric effects exist, the 'integrity' that would be acceptable isn't there yet.
The Times article is propoganda. Ask any director of an airline "Does he/she believe the pilots could be made obsolete?" and he'd likely reply "No, but it would be nice if they could". An airline without pilots would be an airline without Duty Limitations, Industrial unrest, Human error and many other human 'failings' that to a beancounter are COST.
What this article suggests is that the public are being drip fed the desire to 'automate out' the role of a pilot into the unskilled role of systems monitor. We can prevent this by having spokespersons who can reinforce the truth of our role at every opportunity. BALPA know their job and perhaps the days have ended where we have to endure listening to Eric Moody prattle on without recourse about his opinion of how easy the job is.
We are entering a tough era, guys. One big bankrupt airline (No-ones safe are they?) will flood the market with lots of desperate colleagues very soon and the rules of 'the market' will be slapped across our face by the very people who sponsor the aforesaid Times article. Just stay professional and keep your side of the bargain. Do not devalue your role!