Agreed. It's comparing a business model which works and is profitable with one that doesn't and isn't.
Not quite. AZ's business model is not the issue; it is generally the same business model as that of any legacy carrier (LH IB AF/KL BA etc), most of which are doing just fine thank you.
The difference is that while these other carriers privatized sometime in the 80s/90s (albeit with government retaining significant control in some cases, n'est-ce pas) and started focussing on cost and revenue (ie on profitable management), AZ remained wholly in the government's inept hands.
Governments in my country usually change every other year, and are world-famous for their inability to organize a piss-up at a brewery, let alone an airline... hence the current problem.
Take a look at AZ's balance sheet and you will notice that staff costs are actually substantially LOWER than that of other majors, while staff generally work just as hard (at least I can guarantee you the pilots do, though AZ headquarters office workers are legendary for their inability to lift a pen). HOWEVER you will also notice a HUGE expenditure for external services and procurements.
Follow the money trail and you will see that INEVITABLY the companies furnishing these over-priced services to AZ are owned by this minister's wife, that politician's brother-in-law, the other banker's son...
PLEASE stop falling for the old saw that AZ's woes are caused by its staff... I'm sure there may be plenty of room for improvement there, but the root cause is MANAGEMENT (ie govt), or lack therof.