The article by Yap Mun Ching AirAsia's corporate flight plan holds good is a timely reminder to many of us that true entrepreneurship still has a place in the cronyism and you-know-who business world of today, at least in Malaysia.

This contrasts with the massive shenanigans that have been going on to makeover MAS and show that it is profitable. A snippet in Edge (Issue 489, page 3) in relation to the future prospects for MAS has provoked me to write in and voice my strongest objections.

Please let me say at the outset that I cast no aspersion on BinaFikir and its members. However, to suggest that MAS actually turned itself around due to the financial restructuring is an insult to all taxpayers as we are the ones paying for the costs which were previously borne by MAS only.

No one can refute that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (PMB) is now left carrying the depreciation and financial cost otherwise removed from the books of MAS.

The only reason MAS is able to declare profit these days is simply due to the leasing charges being lower then the sum of depreciation and financial charges previously carried by the assets and loans in the books.

In addition, the cost of running domestic services is borne by taxpayers via PMB. This is absurd given MAS recent folly in trying to cut prices to match AirAsia.

I am presently trying to compare MAS today with MAS of those days without the depreciation/ financial cost to actually see if any improvements have been made.

To use a metaphor, imagine if Perwaja Steel were to sell all its assets and transfer its loans to a company called Syarikat Keluli Negara while Perwaja only operates and sells steel. I can bet my bottom dollar that Perwaja also would be profitable. Hey, we may even be able to list it in KLSE.

I am terribly upset that PMB has cost taxpayers so much money. PMB now has a full fledged board, an MD, a CFO, a Financial Controller, a full-staff strength and a swanking new office. All of this is unnecessary for what is actually an asset management company.

If MAS were just privatised and de-listed, the cost to the taxpayer would have been far less. This is without even talking about unnecessary consultancy costs and all that.

An apple must be compared with an apple. In this case it appears that everyone is comparing a rotten apple to an apple rehabilitated with taxpayers' monies. This amounts to a backdoor subsidy even though WTO rules do not allow airlines to receive direct government subsidies.

In closing, I urge the government to choose someone with airline or at least an operating experience to run MAS, not merely a banker or a financial consultant. These may not suffice in face of the severe competition MAS is facing.

Why spend so much money subsidising a 'luxury' area when our public bus service can be rescued and turned world class for a fraction of the money spent on MAS?