IMO, it was a bit of a under-thought-out article by McCartney. Percentage of flights operated is far from a measure of success in bad weather conditions. I am fully aware that he made an anecdotal attempt to temper his slant, but the article still felt like a 9th-grade essay for why B6 and CO are better than AA and UA.
If we were to pretend that percentage of flights operated is a good measure of success, you couldn't compare the likes of B6 with network carriers anyway. Most of B6's pax are locals (traveling on one-segment itineraries). By operating the most flights possible, B6 can be assured that they are doing their best to get people home. It is not the same for AA, UA, CO, et al. Hub-and-spoke airlines get themselves in a lot of trouble if they try to fly all of their pax and a bunch them end up stuck in a connecting city with thousands of other pax and no hotels available.