Mr Isa
Let me be clear about this – you are now saying that “whether the 96 routes were profitable or not it did not matter”.
That is not what you posted previously, when you mentioned “96 profitable routes”.
So, are you saying that MAS has to operate routes, whether profitable or loss-making? And that it has the right of first refusal on these routes?
Let me ask you another question (and I will address this to YB Wee as well) – should the priority of the Malaysian government be to develop Malaysia (and KLIA as the country’s flagship airport) as a premier regional air hub or should it be to protect MAS at all costs?
I think that most unbiased analysts would agree that these two priorities cannot coexist in harmony.
Why should Malaysians be denied the benefits of competition in the airline industry if it results in more choices, better service and lower fares?
Next question – what is your take on the future of premium “full service” airlines like MAS, given the ever-increasing competition from low-cost carriers (LCCs)?
Also, why should the Malaysian government use public funds to subsidise unprofitable domestic air routes and rural air services? And, if there are compelling reasons to do so, why not do it openly and transparently?
I await, with great interest, your answers to the above.