I have to agree partly with WAIF-er here. The point is valid. If for example, on sept 11th, three budget airlines in the UK and BA/BMI were all hijacked, they may all end up going to the wall. As has been pointed out, in order to ensure economic recovery thereafter, it could ONLY be a state airline that could underwrite the risks and costs, as investors sure as hell wouldn't.
The notion that under no cirumstances whatever can an airline recieve state aid is a flawed argument. So many scenarios could evolve making it impossible to run airlines commercially..biological attacks, nuclear attacks and so on.
Anyone who knows the ABC of economics would concur. State control will always be an option, for the benefit of the state involved and to allow for economic growth in the future.
Investors will only invest where there exists a possibility to make profit. With the best will in the world, the possibility to make profit does not always exist.
As regards railtrack, good on stephen Byers - I never could quite get a grip on a private company that pays dividends to investors, performs very badly and yet receives massive government subsidy. If it was so good, why did it depend on taxpayers money to stay in business? Shame it wasn't done five years ago.