Singapore Airlines is 56% owned by the state. Thai Airways is more than 50% owned by the Thai Ministry of Finance. In other words, the state has a controlling stake in each case. Lufthansa and Qantas are basically private companies now. But the point about the Middle Eastern airlines and their profit and loss accounts is another example of missing the point of state ownership. The whole point of state ownership of key infrastructure is that they are able to be operated with the bigger picture in mind. It's possible (though not necessary) to operate public services at a loss, temporarily or permanently, in the hope of increased investment in other areas of the economy. I doubt Dubai or Abu Dhabi would be what they are today if they hadn't investing shitloads of public money into making them attractive transport hubs between Asia and Europe. And just for the record, I regularly fly between Asia and Europe, and Emirates, Qatar and to a lesser extent Etihad are regularly amongst the most affordable options (just had a quick look for August and a flight from where I am to Manchester is cheapest on Emirates followed by KLM and Oman Air, with basically naff all between them).
It's worth mentioning that nationalisation always becomes an option during a catastrophic fuck up. Northern Rock was nationalised when it threatened the economy. When the private company that ran the Fukushima power plant ignored two of their own safety reports leading to a triple nuclear meltdown, they were effectively nationalised to deal with the massive compensation payouts. We're always ready to jump in and spend government money cleaning up after private company failures, yet the idea of a government owning it before it fucks up is a complete non-starter for some people. As I said earlier, it's the dogma surrounding this issue that's ridiculous. As is the characterisation that if we had for example a publicly-owned nuclear power plant, then Boris Johnson would be personally managing the reactor.