There are no comments/voice on the AA side because they are likely 'accidentally' dodging labor laws (by laying obligation of checking legality on the attendants) through obfuscation of this data. That seems a large part of why it's become a 'must-have.' That kind of behavior merits this relatively 'soft' one-sided take in my opinion.
Then perhaps AA corporate should have responded more promptly to the writer’s request for information had they been interested in being more fairly represented.
By that reasoning, if the company refuses to comment an article should not be published, or if published must be rejected as one sided? That's convenient.
You can always still publish when they don't react within a reasonable time, and add a comment to that effect, as you can often see in newspaper articles.