Pressure mounts to scrap SAA as taxpayers reject more funding

—  South Africans are pushing back against more funding for South African Airways (SAA)

—  Taxpayers say billions have been spent with little to show

—  Growing calls to scrap SAA and redirect money to basic services

—  Senior journalist Phillip de Wet argues SAA is “insurance” for future crises

—  Critics reject the argument, saying struggling taxpayers can’t afford more bailouts

South Africa is once again locked in a heated debate over the future of SAA, but this time, frustration among financially strained taxpayers is taking centre stage.

With billions already spent and little to show, many South Africans are questioning why they should continue funding the struggling national carrier while basic services remain under pressure.

‘We have nothing to show for it’

De Wet acknowledged the growing anger, saying there is broad agreement among taxpayers who feel burned by years of bailouts.

“I think that is the consensus… amongst those who pay tax and have watched a lot of tax money being burnt by SAA,” he said.

“We’re all very resentful. We’ve spent a lot of money… and we have nothing to show for it.”

The comments reflect a wider public mood: taxpayers are increasingly unwilling to bankroll a state-owned airline seen as repeatedly mismanaged.

Scrap SAA or keep paying?

Critics argue that continued subsidies make little sense when South Africa already has access to international and domestic flights through private carriers.

They say national interest would be better served by investing in essential services such as healthcare, infrastructure, and water supply, rather than an airline with a long history of financial instability.

The central question remains: why continue funding SAA when alternatives exist?

‘Insurance’ or endless bailout?

De Wet argues that a national airline should be viewed as strategic infrastructure, a form of “insurance” against an uncertain global future.

He warns that geopolitical tensions, fuel shortages, or reduced international routes could leave South Africa isolated, making a state-controlled airline critical.

“If you think things are not going to be okay… then insurance starts making sense,” he said.

He added that owning aircraft and maintaining operational control would allow the country to act in its own interests during crises, particularly in protecting tourism and economic access.

Scepticism over future risks

However, the argument has failed to convince many critics, who see it as speculative and disconnected from current realities.

They argue that hypothetical future risks cannot justify ongoing financial strain today, especially as taxpayers face rising costs of living and declining public services.

There is also doubt over whether travel demand would even exist in the crisis scenarios used to justify continued funding.

Related coverage on SAA:

— SAA is still a long way from being profitable, says minister

Transport Minister Barbara Creecy says the airline remains financially unstable and repeated audit disclaimers are “unacceptable”.

— SAA under fire in Parliament over questionable financials

The Auditor-General has again raised concerns about SAA’s books, despite claims of profit after business rescue.

— SAA returns to Parliament amid leadership exits and financial strain

The airline faced MPs after senior resignations, with its long-term financial sustainability still in doubt.

— Creecy flags serious concerns over SAA audit outcomes

The government admits there has been little improvement, with the airline receiving the worst audit outcome again.

— Doubts over SAA’s claimed profits persist

Analysts argue the airline may still be running a significant underlying loss despite reporting profits.

A debate far from settled

The clash highlights a deeper divide: whether SAA is a costly burden taxpayers can no longer afford, or a strategic asset worth preserving at a price.

For now, one thing is clear: many South Africans are tired of paying.