Argentina's government published Decree 873/2024 on October 2, 2024, declaring flag carrier Aerolíneas Argentinas subject to privatization. It was a consequential step in President Javier Milei's effort to reduce the state's business portfolio, but it did not sell the airline. The decree's official text explicitly explains that under the applicable privatization law, an executive declaration must subsequently be approved by Congress. A proposal to privatize the airline had already been removed from a broader reform bill passed earlier in the year, Reuters reported.
The distinction between declaring an asset eligible for privatization and actually selling it matters. It sets out the government's intention, enables preparations and forces a political argument, while leaving legislators with a crucial decision. On September 27, spokesman Manuel Adorni had announced plans for a decree the following week. The October text supplied the legal instrument. Investors considering a potential purchase would still need to assess parliamentary support, labor liabilities, routes, aircraft and the terms of any sale.
The government's case
The decree argues that the airline has relied on Treasury transfers since its return to state control and that its staffing is excessive. Adorni told Reuters in September that subsidies to cover deficits since the 2008 renationalization had exceeded $8 billion. That is a government spokesman's cumulative figure, not a fresh independent audit of what privatization would save. The decree cites its own figures for pilots and planes and compares staffing with other Latin American airlines. Such comparisons express the administration's rationale; they do not by themselves account for route mix, maintenance practices or national-service obligations.
Milei's broader aviation policy sought more market access and less state support. The decree itself refers to regulatory changes on entry and competition. From the government's perspective, taxpayers should not repeatedly finance an airline it considers inefficient if private operators can serve travelers at lower cost. The potential gain is fiscal relief and stronger price competition. The challenge is to demonstrate that a buyer can operate the network while meeting safety and service requirements, especially outside profitable trunk routes.
Unions, routes and Congress
Reuters reported fierce protests by aviation unions over the administration's cost-cutting efforts. Workers' objections carry a practical as well as political weight: staffing reductions, pay and labor agreements affect any company's viability, and disruption can harm passengers before an ownership decision is settled. In a very large country, the question of whether remote connections will survive commercial restructuring is more than symbolic. The government itself described aviation as important for regional development and tourism in its decree, even while arguing for different ownership.
Opponents of a sale could therefore focus on connectivity and jobs as well as on the legal requirement for congressional approval. Supporters could respond that subsidizing an inefficient incumbent is not the only way to maintain routes and that competition can serve passengers better. Neither claim establishes the outcome before bids, operating plans and legislative votes are known. Milei's governing bloc held limited seats when the decree was announced, Reuters observed, making coalition-building essential.
What comes next
The government could prepare for valuation and sound out buyers, but lawmakers would have to approve the step required under the privatization statute. Potential bidders would also want clarity about staff obligations, routes and any continued public-service support. The October decree was a policy declaration with real political stakes, not a completed sale. For passengers and investors, that legal difference is the most important fact in the story.
