Critics of the Plus Ultra rescue argue that the case represents a failure of institutional transparency and a potential instance of influence peddling. The core of this concern lies in the suspicion that the airline did not meet the objective requirements for state aid, yet received funding regardless. Skeptics point to the close personal and professional ties between company stakeholders and high-ranking political figures as evidence that the selection process may have been compromised by political favoritism rather than economic merit.
For those demanding accountability, the primary issue is the misuse of public funds. They argue that if the ownership structure was misrepresented to qualify for the aid, the government had a duty to verify these details more thoroughly before approving the disbursement. The ongoing judicial investigation is seen as a vital step toward uncovering whether the administration prioritized political connections over the strict criteria intended to protect taxpayer money. This perspective holds that the integrity of public institutions is at stake when state aid is distributed in a way that appears opaque or biased.
Furthermore, the involvement of former Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has raised significant ethical questions about the role of former officials in lobbying or influencing current government decisions. Critics warn that if the judicial process reveals that the rescue was facilitated by personal relationships, it could lead to a lasting loss of public trust in the government's handling of the national budget. The demand for full disclosure and potential political responsibility is driven by the need to ensure that such interventions are governed by clear, fair, and objective standards in the future.