This was the headline in a news report recently.
Who was the adviser hired?
Alton Aviation Consultancy, aviation consulting firm, with their head office in New York and has offices in Dublin, London, Dubai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Singapore and Tokyo.
Why MOF or for that matter, tax payers monies are involved in this?
In Jan 2026, AirAsia X announces that it secures full subscription for RM1 billion placement.
In the same announcement, the company also announced that the Group is finalising additional aircraft order.
In May 2026, Capital A Bhd, who holds approximately 18% equity stake in AirAsia Group (formerly AirAsia X Bhd) announced that they have received approval from the authorities for them to be uplifted from financially distressed status, Practice Note 17 (PN17).
Capital A Bhd’s business now comprised of non-aviation and aviation-support digital portfolios namely its maintenance, repair and operations unit Asia Digital Engineering (ADE), Teleport (logistics), AirAsia Move (travel platform), Santan (food and beverage) and AirAsia Next (brand licensing and digital intellectual property).
Under Capital A's for it to be uplifted from PN17, the group states that it will list its core non-aviation businesses individually—including its branding, logistics (Teleport), and aviation services (ADE) businesses—after its balance sheet cleanup and PN17 status lifting are completed.
What is intriguing was why MOF is evaluating AirAsia’s financial health and funding requirement when both companies i.e AirAsia Group and Capital A announced a successful fund raising and a lifting of the company from PN17 status only in the 1st half of 2026?
The ordinary rakyat deserves to know.
Would tax payers monies be involved?
Tax payers monies were already involved when MOF decides to hire Alton Aviation Consultancy in Sept 2026 to evaluate AirAsia's financial health and funding requirements.
The ordinary rakyat respectfully request that MOF disclose what was the fee arrangements and how much would be paid to Alton Aviation Consultancy for the evaluation exercise.
The airline is “too big to fail”?
The airline has always and is run as a commercial private entity, thus their shareholders and owners are responsible for providing financial support.
This argument was used in bailouts of other companies like Sapura who received significant capital injections—largely through the state-owned institutional fund Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB)—but everyday taxpayers and fund contributors bore the ultimate risk. Meanwhile, top executives and founders faced heavy scrutiny for absorbing high remuneration packages and dividends during the company's peak years before its financial distress left the public to shoulder the burden.
State-backed funding or guaranteed loans?
In October 2021, AirAsia's then-parent Capital A reportedly received approval for an 80% government-guaranteed loan of up to RM500 million to cover working capital needs post-pandemic.
Capital A, apparently did not proceed because it would have required guarantees from the 2 co-founders.
Now that AirAsia is going back to the government, it only means that since Oct 2021, conditions has deteriorated further to necessitate AirAsia to go back to the government.
And what about the 2 announcements earlier this year that it secures full subscription for the RM1 billion placement and Capital A has been uplifted from PN17?
If the company has secured full subscription for the RM1 billion placement, it means private investors still have confidence in AirAsia. If so, why go to the government?
Yes, Capital A no longer owns the airline business as it has been sold to AirAsia Group but it still owns 18% in AirAsia Group and owns the brand AirAsia.
If in Oct 2021, both the founders disagree with providing personal guarantees to the government, there is more reason for the government, assuming it still proceed and provide funding or guarantees to the group, insist on more than just personal guarantees from the founders.
The Madani government should be forewarned that the airline business is a risky business and the government have no rights to put taxpayers’ money at such high risk.
The turnaround at MAS is not a success story as a huge sum of monies was injected into the airline to ensure it stay afloat.
The government has not option but to continue in sustaining MAS solely because it is a national airline.
AirAsia is not a national airline.
Let the shareholders and the Board of Directors decide and determine their future and their direction.
The government has no right nor it has the mandate from the people of Malaysia to put tax payers monies at risk in this.
What the government should be doing instead of spending tax payers monies unnecessarily to evaluate the needs of AirAsia is to quickly draw up plans on how to assist those that will be affected in the entire ecosystem of AirAsia should the company right or downsize their operations in the short term rather than leaving them to deal with it on their own.
FLK (leekhean.foo@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
