Haha Malaysia Airlines really aren't that bad!
Marilyn Munroe: I think having a national airline is a priority for any government, you might disagree with that, but its not a great look for a country if their main airline fails
Printable View
Yes it has turned into a good investment for the government and yes current management is top-notch.
But the government is still exposed to risk in an industry which has a mixed record financially.
If Ansett MK II happened how would you justify the cost to someone who needs a hip replacement because of pain but can't get one because the governments cash has been diverted into keeping the airline flying?
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
It's not as simple a trade-off. At the time of the bail out, the govt concerned was running surpluses and continued to do so for many years, while at the same time spending substantial amounts on things like hip operations, debt reduction etc. Now if the same situation occurred today, you could argue there would be a trade-off, but you'd have to question whether the current govt would actually spend the money it might invest in bailing out Air NZ on the health sector or any other part of the public service that's currently struggling. They can make the decision to spend that money on public services now, but they haven't so why equate the two?
As for whether it was a good investment or not, the following might be interesting to some:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicat...stment-anz-pt1
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicat...stment-anz-pt2
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publicat...stment-anz-pt3
Maybe, but since they've already effectively recovered their initial investment, they're basically being free carried from here on in. Why shouldn't the govt earn dividends from investments if those investments prove sound (and they can back them up with govt policy to enhance them i.e. tourism programs).