That is ... an oddly specific reference?

> Satellites move about 30x the speed of airliners. Hence, if everything else was similar, one would expect 30x the amount of collisions

Not how orbital mechanics work.

Planes maneuvers, get tossed around and have hubs they circle. A plane under my left wing can’t be relied on to continue in a straight line. The satellite can.

> and whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow

This is something people unfamiliar tend to misconceive in their limited thinking on the subject. You can't just tap the breaks to slow down. Changing altitude of satellites is done by speeding up to increase altitude and slowing down to lower altitude. Once you change the velocity and reach the desired altitude, you have to then undo that acceleration to get back to orbital velocity. Fuel is required in both directions. The less fuel used the better for the maneuver. Most satellites EoL is defined by remaining maneuvering fuel vs functionality of the hardware.

My first understanding of accelerating in space was from the old Asteroids game. To slow down, you had to rotate 180° and start accelerating in that direction. Others might learn it from Kerbal.

> whilst orbits are fast satellite manoeuvres are slow, so the notice you need to avoid a conjunction is measured in hours rather than seconds

I'm not arguing against collisions becoming more likely. I'm arguing aginst it becoming commonplace to the point that it becomes a commercial concern.

> satellite manoeuvres use up a finite supply of expensively-launched propellant

Nobody is plane changing out of a collision. And for the foreseeable future, in LEO, the birds are not propellant constrained. (And launch is getting cheaper.)

> you either need bigger satellites carrying more propellant or have to accept significantly higher collision risk than they currently do

We're decades away from this being a problem. That gives ample runtime to developing e.g. magnetic station-keeping (if we go reactionless) or more-efficient engines.