Auckland — Air New Zealand posted a $59 million first-half loss, prompting ACT Party leader David Seymour to question whether the government should own the national carrier at all, Stuff reports.
The loss comes as the airline announces a "strategic reset" amid fierce competition, high fuel costs, and economic headwinds affecting international travel. Air New Zealand flagged difficult trading conditions and said it's reviewing routes and capacity.
Seymour, never one to miss a privatization opportunity, jumped on the results to push his libertarian agenda. "Why do we own this?" he asked, arguing that government ownership hasn't delivered better outcomes for taxpayers or passengers.
Classic Seymour. Use a rough patch to question the entire model.
But the question isn't entirely without merit. The government bailed out Air New Zealand during COVID, taking a larger ownership stake to keep the airline afloat. Taxpayers footed the bill to save the national carrier. Now it's posting losses, and Seymour wants to know what voters got for their money.
The airline argues it's navigating unprecedented challenges. International aviation hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic, fuel costs remain volatile, and New Zealand's geographic isolation makes profitability harder than for Northern Hemisphere carriers.
State ownership supporters say the airline provides essential connectivity for a remote island nation. Without Air New Zealand, regional routes to smaller cities would disappear, and New Zealand would be more dependent on foreign carriers with no obligation to serve Kiwi communities.
But Seymour and other privatization advocates argue that government ownership creates inefficiency and protects the airline from competitive pressure. They point to profitable private airlines elsewhere as proof that state ownership isn't necessary.
The airline's board insists the "strategic reset" will return it to profitability. Whether that happens—and whether New Zealand voters believe continued state ownership is worthwhile—will define the debate. Mate, there's a difference between a rough year and a failed model.
