Which is exactly what I said. I said that it is entirely possible to have an effective airline that is nationalised and a private one (otherwise why would I have corrected the original poster that Qantas and Lufthansa are private?). What you said was that "every one of the top 10 airlines in the world is privately owned." Which is blatantly false and has been proven wrong on this thread.
Yeah, a communist dictatorship hell bent on maintaining an iron grip by not showing any weakness. Whereas my example of Fukushima happened in a developed country far more similar economically to the the UK currently. Nobody is arguing that we should be running things like the Soviet Union. Plenty of people argue that having a system like modern day Japan is always more effective.
Yes and the Fukushima reports revealed that one of the main contributors to the failure to take active safety measures was that it would leave the company vulnerable to lawsuits. Better to maintain a coherent message denying that there is any potential danger. We've seen this from private companies time and time again with smoking, sugar, use of dangerous chemicals, and plenty of other health catastrophes. Again, none of this is an argument against private companies generally being a positive thing, just against this bullshit dogmatic argument that private = good, public = bad.
Similarly with trains, as I mentioned earlier, there are countries with good private trains and countries with good national rail providers, and plenty with shit versions of each too. Nationalisation isn't the silver bullet that some think it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table because some idiots believe that everything is better run by a private company, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
Who said anything of the sort?