The truest words in Reggie Debono's letter (The Sunday Times, May 13) are: "It is very important for this country that Air Malta survives. It would be a tragedy if it had to be closed down!"

Low-cost airlines have their place, but so does the flagship airline of a sovereign country. This is particularly true for Malta, which, although small in terms of geographical size and population, actually occupies a place in world affairs which is far greater than is to be expected from its size or population.

As Mrs Luisa Fraschetti, a native of Venezuela, declared (May 20), "To me, even though it is so small, at the same time Malta is so big, so international. It makes me feel like it is the centre of the world."

It is useless to try to make more than a superficial comparison between Air Malta and the 'low-cost' airlines. A low-cost airline has priorities that are purely economic: if it doesn't make money on luggage, if it can't wring concessions on landing fees, or if the passengers are too poor or too mean to buy scratch cards and sandwiches, then the bargain basement airline will simply fold its tent and move elsewhere.

BritishJet is a special case and lies somewhere between the two extremes: it is anchored to Malta and is committed to Maltese inward tourism and low fares, but it is not burdened by the national commitments that face Air Malta.

As with the national airline of any Catholic country, one of the most important routes for Air Malta (and one which may be seen as a moral obligation), is that to Rome. This route has a special status, which will mean that it will be flown even when the load factor is lower than that normally sustainable and when pure economic considerations would dictate fewer flights.

This is something Mr Debono may have had in mind when he wrote of "foreign airlines which obviously have no moral responsibility towards Malta". This situation is not unique to Air Malta and it would therefore make commercial sense for Air Malta to negotiate reciprocal agreements with airlines which face similar 'moral' obligations.

A case in point is Aer Lingus, which links Rome to Dublin and Cork. Now that Air Malta has ceased to provide a scheduled service to Dublin, other than by Ryanair (with its well-known drawbacks), the easiest way to those cities from Malta is via Rome. However, in the absence of an agreement on through-ticketing, it is necessary to collect baggage from Air Malta at Rome Fiumicino Terminal C and then re-check it in the same terminal with Aer Lingus.

Through-ticketing would make the journey far simpler and would also enable tighter connections. Similar agreements could be made on other routes, e.g. to Madrid, which Air Malta serves twice a week in summer, whereas Iberia has as many as six flights a day from Rome.

Such arrangements would serve to fill seats on the sacrosanct Rome routes, thus assisting all three airlines to fulfil their commercial, as well as their 'moral' obligations. The same argument also applies to other marginal routes, where Air Malta could carry the passenger on the first or last leg of their journey.

Iberia is the world's fourth largest airline, with a large number of South American routes, and probably carries more Catholic passengers than any other airline. It may not provide the best example for such long-term co-operation, for in the very near future it is likely to be taken over by foreign financial interests, which will not entertain any such moral imperatives.

Similarly, Aer Lingus faces the possibility of takeover by Ryanair. These doubts about their future as independent airlines serve to emphasise the importance of like-minded national airlines co-operating, if they are to survive and sustain their 'moral obligations'.

Overmanning may be part of the problem, but what is needed is creative thinking, not hand wringing.