Proponents of the government's decision to rescue Plus Ultra argue that the primary objective was to safeguard essential infrastructure and employment during an unprecedented global crisis. When the pandemic halted international travel, the state had to act quickly to prevent the collapse of companies that provided vital links to Latin American markets. From this viewpoint, the aid was a necessary economic intervention designed to maintain competition in the aviation sector and protect the livelihoods of hundreds of employees.
Supporters emphasize that the SEPI solvency fund was established specifically to prevent the permanent loss of viable businesses that were temporarily crippled by lockdowns. They argue that the legal challenges are politically motivated attempts to undermine the government's economic recovery efforts. By focusing on technicalities regarding shareholding structures, critics are accused of ignoring the broader reality that the airline was a key player in maintaining critical air routes that other major carriers were not servicing at the time.
Furthermore, those defending the administration point out that the aid was subject to rigorous internal reviews and oversight mechanisms. They maintain that the government acted in good faith based on the information available at the time of the application. The focus on political figures like Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is viewed as a distraction from the actual economic benefits the rescue provided to the Spanish tourism and transport sectors. For these supporters, the priority remains the stability of the national economy and the preservation of strategic assets.